Former University of Houston QB Case Keenum agrees to a contract with the Texans

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by Grams

I believe he won the Super Bowl in his 2nd season - 2001. And his 4th - 2003.
That looks like a pretty dang good QB to me. Took Peyton a whole lot longer to win 1, much less 3 that Brady has.

Team game. The name on the back, not the front...... to quote a wise old sage.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by GP

I think you stepped out there and didn't know the history of Tom Brady as well as you thought you did.

Your entire premise is way off.

I hold by my original statement. Couldn't care less about popular opinion. His first 4 or 5 years, he didn't belong in the conversation with Peyton, regardless how many rings Peyton didn't have.

Dan Marino, Dan Fouts..... Warren Moon, Randall Cunningham, great QBs, no rings.

Troy Dilfer, Brad Johnson... suck with rings.

It's not my premise that is off.

[badboy]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

No he didn't. He played on a team with a bad-ass defense & one of the better kickers the league has ever seen.

Tom Brady wasn't a very good QB for at least his first 4 or 5 years. Maybe there was a chip on his shoulder that made him get better over the years....... he's definitely better.

Those early years, there was Brady vs Manning talk & I thought it was the silliest TV generated crap I had ever heard. Wasn't even close. But in the last 5 or 6 years, Brady has put himself into that conversation & I can now see some people grading him higher than the best there ever was.

So if you have basic skills, desire, a good coach and right system, you could succeed in NFL.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by badboy

So if you have basic skills, desire, a good coach and right system, you could succeed in NFL.

yes

[JB]

Originally Posted by Texan_Bill

Really?? The "Olden Days"??

Hey ****ers, it's you people that brought us into the world of young hipsters AND us into you're terrible "times"...

Wait, WHAT??? Scooby Doo rocked!!! Yosemite Sam? Bugs??? Mid-South Wrasslin' (Paul Bosch) EVERY Saturday morning was the bomb!!!

That ****e was GOOD Saturday morning TV!!

Old ****

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

I hold by my original statement. Couldn't care less about popular opinion. His first 4 or 5 years, he didn't belong in the conversation with Peyton, regardless how many rings Peyton didn't have.

Dan Marino, Dan Fouts..... Warren Moon, Randall Cunningham, great QBs, no rings.

Troy Dilfer, Brad Johnson... suck with rings.

It's not my premise that is off.

But aren't you the one who categorized QBs by whether they were SB caliber or not?

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

But aren't you the one who categorized QBs by whether they were SB caliber or not?

I don't think Dilfer or Brad Johnson are SB caliber. I don't think either of them could lead their team to a SuperBowl. Riding on the coat-tails of one of the greatest defenses of all times is not leading your team to a super bowl.

Ben Rothlisberger was not a great QB when he won his first Super Bowl was he? He's a much better QB now, than he was then. Same holds true for Brady.

[GP]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

I don't think Dilfer or Brad Johnson are SB caliber. I don't think either of them could lead their team to a SuperBowl. Riding on the coat-tails of one of the greatest defenses of all times is not leading your team to a super bowl.

Ben Rothlisberger was not a great QB when he won his first Super Bowl was he? He's a much better QB now, than he was then. Same holds true for Brady.

Ben was better than people expected him to be. He won a SB, not many NFL sophomores win a SB. I don't care what they have around them, they're still between a rock and a hard place when it comes to being a starting QB in the NFL (let alone WINNING a SB!).

What in da hell else can make a QB be recognized as being "great?"

Your standards are so quirky. You're the only guy on this board who thought Steve Slaton was running BETTER his last year here than his first season here. I really don't grasp your analytical skills when it comes to grading players.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by GP

Ben was better than people expected him to be. He won a SB, not many NFL sophomores win a SB. I don't care what they have around them, they're still between a rock and a hard place when it comes to being a starting QB in the NFL (let alone WINNING a SB!).

Do you think Ben was better, worse, or the same in 2011 as he was the year he won the Super Bowl?

Are you saying as a sophomore, Ben was a better NFL QB because he won a Super Bowl, than he was in 2011, when his team missed the play-offs?

[ckhouston]

Originally Posted by Texan_Bill

Mid-South Wrasslin' (Paul Bosch) EVERY Saturday morning was the bomb!!!

That ****e was GOOD Saturday morning TV!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Boesch

Paul Boesch was awesome. The first airing from the Sam Houston Coliseum would be late Friday night, around 11pm if I remember, but I would always stay up to watch. They would then re-air it the next morning on Saturday.

Wahoo McDaniel, Ivan Putsky, Gorgeous Gino Hernandez, Von Erich Brothers, etc. Good times.

[drs23]

Originally Posted by ObsiWan

it's ain't about color
(hmm... could you be that young?!)

It's a Bugs Bunny thing... from the olden dayz
(pre-P.C.) cartoons




Maybe TK should have used a Dilbert reference...

Dang, and I used to watch BB/RR hour in black-n-white with rabbit ears. Maybe I couldn't read yet.

[GP]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

Do you think Ben was better, worse, or the same in 2011 as he was the year he won the Super Bowl?

Are you saying as a sophomore, Ben was a better NFL QB because he won a Super Bowl, than he was in 2011, when his team missed the play-offs?

Clearly he was better in 2005.

You are always trying to flip conventional wisdom on its head. You think Steve Slaton ran better in his last year than he did in his best season ever (rookie year). You think Brady wasn't a great QB his first 5 years. And you think Ben was better last year than he was in his Super Bowl year in 2005.

Do you not see a pattern with your analysis???

Even Ben admitted recently that he feels he wasn't that great in 2011. He says he's going to try and get back what he HAD BEEN prior to 2011.

You're getting Kubiak Cute with player analysis.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by GP

Clearly he was better in 2005.

You are always trying to flip conventional wisdom on its head. You think Steve Slaton ran better in his last year than he did in his best season ever (rookie year). You think Brady wasn't a great QB his first 5 years. And you think Ben was better last year than he was in his Super Bowl year in 2005.

Do you not see a pattern with your analysis???

Even Ben admitted recently that he feels he wasn't that great in 2011. He says he's going to try and get back what he HAD BEEN prior to 2011.

You're getting Kubiak Cute with player analysis.

Is this correct? Is this the way the rest of you think? Am I alone on this one?

Ben was better in 2005 because he won a Super Bowl than he was in 2011 because he didn't make the play-offs...

Is that conventional wisdom?

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

Is this correct? Is this the way the rest of you think? Am I alone on this one?

Ben was better in 2005 because he won a Super Bowl than he was in 2011 because he didn't make the play-offs...

Is that conventional wisdom?

OK on the one hand I don't disagree with all your contrarian positions. OTOH yes Ben was better in 2005 because he was more efficient in almost every regard. It isn't that he won the SB - that is a team achievement. It is that he was efficient within what the team wanted to do. He has adopted a bit of a gunslinger mentality and is making mistakes.

[TheEastwood]

I dont know why you keep on saying that he didn't make the playoffs in 2011... if you mean last year, then they made it and got bounced out by the broncos. If you mean the year before that.... the Steelers made it to the freakin Superbowl lol.

And imo, of course Big Ben is better know than he was back then. A great defense and some sketchy calls won him that first ring. Football is a TEAM game. For the first couple of years, Brady has good. not great, good. He was a solid game manager that relied on the defense and running game to win. His specialty was that he was always so clutch at the end of the game. And even then, without adam venateri, nobodies talking about how clutch Tom Brady is imo. Dont you remember people talking about Peyton vs Brady? Peyton has the stats but Brady has the rings? That's cause his first few years in the nfl, Tom Brady wasnt the TB of today. He has completely elevated his game to something special and is now, today, one of the best ive ever seen.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

OK on the one hand I don't disagree with all your contrarian positions. OTOH yes Ben was better in 2005 because he was more efficient in almost every regard. It isn't that he won the SB - that is a team achievement. It is that he was efficient within what the team wanted to do. He has adopted a bit of a gunslinger mentality and is making mistakes.

So Ben has regressed is what you're saying?

I believe we've had discussions about Brady/Manning on this board (or the old one) around that time. My opinion (as contrarian as it may seem) was the same then as it is now. Brady didn't belong in the conversation at that time.

I think he's a much better QB now than he was then, even though he didn't win an MVP last year.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by TheEastwood

I dont know why you keep on saying that he didn't make the playoffs in 2011... if you mean last year, then they made it and got bounced out by the broncos.

You're right.. thank you for correcting me & not being smug about it.

Originally Posted by TheEastwood

If you mean the year before that.... the Steelers made it to the freakin Superbowl lol.

Belay my last.

Originally Posted by TheEastwood

And imo, of course Big Ben is better know than he was back then. A great defense and some sketchy calls won him that first ring. Football is a TEAM game.

So you agree with me.

Originally Posted by TheEastwood

For the first couple of years, Brady has good. not great, good. He was a solid game manager that relied on the defense and running game to win. His specialty was that he was always so clutch at the end of the game.

And even then, without adam venateri, nobodies talking about how clutch Tom Brady is imo. Dont you remember people talking about Peyton vs Brady? Peyton has the stats but Brady has the rings? That's cause his first few years in the nfl, Tom Brady wasnt the TB of today.

He has completely elevated his game to something special and is now, today, one of the best ive ever seen.

Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Thanks again. I'm not alone.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

So Ben has regressed is what you're saying?

Wouldn't say regressed so much as has taken too much on himself and has become a less efficient QB. The Steelers were about team. Now Ben thinks they are about him.

[GP]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

You're right.. thank you for correcting me & not being smug about it.

Belay my last.

So you agree with me.


Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Thanks again. I'm not alone.

Well, "not being alone" is not exactly having a crowded room of supporters either. If the bar you're setting is that low, then congrats.

The issue is that Ben, whether it be from injuries or declining team around him (injured o-line, inconsistent RB situations, etc.), is not the same guy he was in 2005. He was good in 2004, too. He's been decently consistent, IMO. But to say he's better now than he was early on...it's a reach.

Tom Brady. Look, the Pats found a way to win with Brady at QB early on. Since then, they've been adding weaponry to the arsenal. As weapons have been added, YES there has been an increase in his productivity. But I still think he was fundamentally the same QB early on that he is now. Growth? Yes. But it's not like he was mediocre those first four or five years. To me, with what you typed, you're saying Tom Brady wasn't even in the running as being a "great QB" his first four or five years. That bit of text was hyperbole, surely. Right?

You need to quote the other two people, such as the quote Grams made, and not just the lone supporter of your thoughts on this topic. I'll re-post it, and let's discuss to what degree Tom Brady is massively better now than he was his first four or five years.

Grams said:

I believe he won the Super Bowl in his 2nd season - 2001. And in his 4th season in 2003. That looks like a pretty dang good QB to me. Took Peyton a whole lot longer to win 1, much less 3 that Brady has.

And Texan Bill said:

Are you freaking kidding me? I hope you're being facetious.

Forget about 2000 (he was a back-up to Bledsoe), but from 2001 to 2005:

Pro-Bowl - 3 times
TD's/Int's - 123/66
Completion % - 62%
QBRating - 88.6%

I dunno know man, but maybe you could re-evalute your standards, because those numbers are pretty freakin' solid in my book. Yes, they had a good defense and yes they had a pretty good kicker but to suggest that Brady wasn't very good is pretty ludicrous, TK.

And this is coming from someone that despises that douche.

Now, SBs can be held in a vacuum...but when the guy has multiple SBs and a trio of Pro Bowl starts in four years' time, he's doing something right. Consistently. Eli Manning outplayed Tom Brady in this previous SB....so is the window on Brady as a "great QB" closing? No. He just got outplayed in the singularly most important game of his season, that's all. So when he DOES play well in 2001 and 2004 and gets a ring both those years, he was doing things really well back then as well. To say he's better now than he was in 2001 and 2003, it doesn't seem to hold water.

[TheEastwood]

GP, if Brady plays those games the exact same way and Venetari misses those kicks, he doesnt have 3 rings. Is he still the best?

That's what I mean by football being a team game. When you look at a qb, you cant just look at rings. If that's how your judging qbs then Dilfer > Marino. Ugh, I feel dirty for even typing that.