Sanchez unable to throw last year?

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by Bleedgreen

Don't try to knock Revis just because he's arguably a better player than your precious Fag Brady.

I must have missed Revis' 2 League MVP awards.

[PatsFanTX]

Originally Posted by Bleedgreen

No different than Ty Law used to get away with. I have no problem with how either of them play. The rules that have been created are pussifying the game. How good would any QB's in the last 10 years be if they weren't protected? Receivers are the same. They push off every play and never get called.

More directly to your question. The reality is that Revis doesn't get called a lot because if you haven't noticed...his technique is flawless. Take a look at his games. More times than not you'll see receivers initiate contact after 5 yards because Revis is like glue. I don't care what the rules say, a referee in good conscience is not going to call a penalty on a guy if the receiver is initiating contact.

Don't try to knock Revis just because he's arguably a better player than your precious Fag Brady.

First off, my point is superstar players are always going to get the benefit of doubt.

Yes, Revis does have flawless technique. That still doesn't mask the fact that he still holds/grabs/interferes with receivers.

A cornerback is "argueably better" than a top 5 quarterback in the history of the NFL?

I'll give you a pass on that one, you must have taken a sip of green kool aid right before you posted that.

[Bleedgreen]

Originally Posted by FF2®

I must have missed Revis' 2 League MVP awards.

He's a QB. A cornerback is never going to get a an MVP so try something else. You know, like a valid rebuttal.

[PatsFanTX]

Originally Posted by FF2®

I must have missed Revis' 2 League MVP awards.

Don't forget about all of Revis's DPOY awards as well.

[Bleedgreen]

Originally Posted by PatsFanTX

First off, my point is superstar players are always going to get the benefit of doubt.

Yes, Revis does have flawless technique. That still doesn't mask the fact that he still holds/grabs/interferes with receivers.

A cornerback is "argueably better" than a top 5 quarterback in the history of the NFL?

I'll give you a pass on that one, you must have taken a sip of green kool aid right before you posted that.

If you think Tom Brady or any QB in this generation (last 12 years) is a Top 5 NFL QB in history, you have some growing up do and things to learn about.

[Bleedgreen]

Originally Posted by PatsFanTX

Don't forget about all of Revis's DPOY awards as well.

Yeah, like he wasn't better than Charles Woodson the year he won it? I guess clowns like yourself need other people validation/votes to gauge how good a player he is. Why use your own eyes to see it?

The players thought they were pretty close. Something tells me Brady was only one spot ahead of Revis because he's a QB.

[PatsFanTX]

Originally Posted by Bleedgreen

If you think Tom Brady or any QB in this generation (last 12 years) is a Top 5 NFL QB in history, you have some growing up do and things to learn about.

So QB's who excel at current NFL rules are considered less of a talent to old time QB's who played under a different set of rules?

Let me ask you this? How fast was the game of NFL football back in the 60's versus the speed/size/strength of the game today?

[PatsFanTX]

Originally Posted by Bleedgreen

Yeah, like he wasn't better than Charles Woodson the year he won it?

Yea, like the Pats weren't a better team when they played the Giants in the last 2 Super Bowls.

See how stupid that game is?

[Bleedgreen]

Originally Posted by PatsFanTX

So QB's who excel at current NFL rules are considered less of a talent to old time QB's who played under a different set of rules?

Let me ask you this? How fast was the game of NFL football back in the 60's versus the speed/size/strength of the game today?

Less of a talent? No Corky. They are protected today. Meaning they do not have to do what QB's used to have to do. That is get banged up, thrown around the field, and get up and have to make a play 40 seconds later.

You're second question is almost irrelevant. The speed today is faster, but the size and strength is the same. In fact, some might argue that players are smaller today. They are definitely not tougher than they used to be that's for sure. But, that's not the point. The point is no matter what one's opinion is on the size/speed/strength of the game. Every player is representative of that particular era. In other words, there weren't players who were significantly bigger/faster/stronger at their respective positions.

If the game is bigger/faster/stronger as you say...keep in mind that the sport itself is so it really doesn't make a difference on a player to player basis.

[PatsFanTX]

Originally Posted by Bleedgreen

The speed today is faster, but the size and strength is the same. In fact, some might argue that players are smaller today.

Really?

Do you know the average size of an OLineman and Dlineman in the 60's versus today?

[Bleedgreen]

Originally Posted by PatsFanTX

Yea, like the Pats weren't a better team when they played the Giants in the last 2 Super Bowls.

See how stupid that game is?

Again, your point here is irrelevant. The Giants and Pats is a game where the champion is determined on the field. Charles Woodson was voted for by people who don't even play the game. See the point?

Oh, and the Patriots were not better than the Giants last season. The Patriots didn't beat anybody with a winning record last season until Baltimore and you know damn well they were extremely fortunate to win that one. Them losing to the Giants in the big game was know surprise to anyone with half a brain.

Although, the Patsies could have won that game, if Tom Brady didn't throw the ball behind Welker.

[PatsFanTX]

Originally Posted by Bleedgreen

The speed today is faster, but the size and strength is the same.

Totally wrong Corky:

In 1970, only one N.F.L. player weighed as much as 300 pounds, according to a survey conducted by The Associated Press. That number has expanded like players’ waistlines from three 300-pounders in 1980 to 94 in 1990, 301 in 2000, 394 in 2009 and 532 as training camps began in 2010.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/sp...pagewanted=all

[Bleedgreen]

Originally Posted by PatsFanTX

Really?

Do you know the average size of an OLineman and Dlineman in the 60's versus today?

Do you know the average size of linebackers, corners and safeties. Again, if you want numbers...go look them up yourself. I don't have time for non-sense. Watching the game for the last 30 years have shown me that it was overall a tougher game with tougher players. Especially QB's who won championships and games while being manhandled. That is a much more difficult way of accomplishing goals than what QBs today have had to deal with. You can't argue that so just stop. You're completely biased and ill-informed if believe your sputum.

[ASG0531]

Originally Posted by Bleedgreen

No different than Ty Law used to get away with. I have no problem with how either of them play. The rules that have been created are pussifying the game. How good would any QB's in the last 10 years be if they weren't protected? Receivers are the same. They push off every play and never get called.

More directly to your question. The reality is that Revis doesn't get called a lot because if you haven't noticed...his technique is flawless. Take a look at his games. More times than not you'll see receivers initiate contact after 5 yards because Revis is like glue. I don't care what the rules say, a referee in good conscience is not going to call a penalty on a guy if the receiver is initiating contact.

Don't try to knock Revis just because he's arguably a better player than your precious Fag Brady.

LOL. No. Stop while you're ahead in your hate.

[Demosthenes9]

Originally Posted by Bleedgreen

Do you know the average size of linebackers, corners and safeties. Again, if you want numbers...go look them up yourself. I don't have time for non-sense. Watching the game for the last 30 years have shown me that it was overall a tougher game with tougher players. Especially QB's who won championships and games while being manhandled. That is a much more difficult way of accomplishing goals than what QBs today have had to deal with. You can't argue that so just stop. You're completely biased and ill-informed if believe your sputum.

Funny thing is that I agree with some of your sentiment, BUT, the "facts" you are stating are waaaaay far out of kilter. Players today, at every position, are bigger, stronger and faster than they were in the past. Most the players are tougher as well.

That said, QBs have had the rules bent in their favor as have WRs, compared to how things used to be in the past. BUT, defenses have also gotten much more complicated and are seeded with faster/stronger players as well.

Rough and tough "old time" QBs like Terry Bradshaw or anyone else you' want to choose would have trouble with the defenses that are on the field today.

[jetfaninmickeymouseland]

Originally Posted by FF2®

You lost me.

if only that was true and tex was with you

[Tackleem]

On the one hand, it is ridiculous to use QB numbers from the Goodell era as bludgeons against QBs from earlier eras. Just a different game. Like baseball before they lowered the mound or hockey before the rule shakeup.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean Brady isn't top 5 all time. It just becomes more of a subjective, eyeball call than a numbers call.

[PatsFanTX]

Originally Posted by Demosthenes9

Funny thing is that I agree with some of your sentiment, BUT, the "facts" you are stating are waaaaay far out of kilter. Players today, at every position, are bigger, stronger and faster than they were in the past. Most the players are tougher as well.

That said, QBs have had the rules bent in their favor as have WRs, compared to how things used to be in the past. BUT, defenses have also gotten much more complicated and are seeded with faster/stronger players as well.

Rough and tough "old time" QBs like Terry Bradshaw or anyone else you' want to choose would have trouble with the defenses that are on the field today.

Now that post is 100% accurate.

[Bleedgreen]

You guys are all missing the point. The only factor that matters here are that QBs certainly were abused more 20+ years ago than they are now. I think we can all agree on this? I think we can all agree, as well, that when physical harm is produced it becomes much more difficult to perform at a high level. Telling me about difficult defenses and bigger, stronger, faster players is irrelevant because they are league-wide changes. Everyone is on equal footing. The only variable that is changed is the treatment of QBs on the field. Thus they have an advantage of not having to perform their task under physical duress.

As far as players struggling with today's defenses...that's a pipe dream. There is absolutely no evidence that that would be the case.

[Mohegangreen]

Originally Posted by PatsFanTX

Get real.

How many clutching/grabbing/illegal contact/pass interference penalties does Revis get away with every single game?

First off, noone got away with more of that stuff thanTy Law did during probably all of your SB winning seasons, so save that bullsh*t...and on top of that they crucify Cromartie with ridiculous ticky tack PI penalties more often than Revis gets away with it, so it doesn't work out in our favor