This smacks of Pat's hatin to me. Lighten up with the Bills comparison, It's not even close. Brady is 2 TD passes away from the record (at 30 yrs old) The record for most points is set to be snapped, personal records are being broken, and a complete sweep is certainly nothing to discount. A win would be nice, It's football, teams loose, but the records will stand on thier own merit.
No, I don't hate the Patriots. They are a great team and will likely take it all. My point is simply this: it's about winning championships. That's why you throw TDs and win regular season games, etc. The Pats have done their share of that, so who can be too critical of them? It's all one big cycle anyway. In five years, they will suck, I assure you, so don't get cocky. That's football, as you note.
My issue is with the whole 16 and 0 thing. If you go 16-0 and get someone hurt, or keep your starter in because he wants to get a record and he gets hurt, or you lose in the playoffs because you wore out your team chasing records, then you aren't really chasing the goal that matters.
True, Brady may set a TD record but he's clearly CHASING the record for the record's sake. Why else did he play in the second half of today's game at all? I'm sorry, but when you are up 28-7 against an inferior team in a game that means nothing to your season and you are still tossing vertical bombs in the fourth quarter looking for another TD and taking a hit as you throw... that seems a little unsettling to me. If the guy separates a shoulder, the Pats go from superheroes to scrubs in an instant. This team is Brady, period. So why is he in there? Is his record more important than the team's ring? Perhaps it is, once you have three.
However, neither he nor Manning were ever cursed with the teams that Marino had. Dan needed a quick release because he spent most of his time on his back, not gazing for an hour at the recievers like Brady does. Also, Brady is on a team that throws 90% of the time, playing for a coach that wants to run up the score even if it wrecks his playoff run because he's mad at the league, and playing in an era when if you look at a receiver funny you get a flag. Also, given the stricter rules about roughing, the pass rush isn't as aggressive as it was even ten years ago. Thus, comparing passing records of today to those of, say, the Bradshaw or staubach era, is impossible. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the secondary could bascially hang onto receivers all over the field. And no one cared about helmet on helmet hits on QBs or hitting them below the knees. So who gives a crap about passing records? It's about the rings. That's what is universal --- proving you are the best when everyone is playing under the same rules. Proving you are the "best" when compared to players of another era, which is what records are about, is meaningless, particularly in s sport that chages it's rules every year.
No one threw the ball better than Dan Fouts in his day, and he's forgotten because he didn't win anything. At one time Fran Tarkenton held all the records, but he's largely a footnote too. As is Kelly, another prolific passer with no rings. Elway was no hall of famer until he got two rings. How many records did Montana need to be a legend? How many records does Namath have? Marino set a ton of records, but the lack of a ring casts a permanent shadow on his legacy. The legend grows around rings, baby, not stats, not records. The more rings, the bigger the legend.
Brady's legacy is in his rings, period. If he and his team throw one away looking for fluff lile 16-0 or 50 TDs, they are idiots. But then, they may get it all. More power to them if they do.
15-0 way to go!!!!!!!
