If you take away Manning and Brady's super bowls.. (1 Viewer)

[Gachi]

Okay, so I got into a very heated argument with my roommate last night about the importance of super bowl rings. It started out by him saying that Tom Brady was better than Peyton Manning, and it escalated to him saying that Peyton wouldn't even be considered for the Hall of Fame if it wasn't for his one super bowl win. I quickly asked him about Dan Marino, one of the greatest QBs to play the game, but who unfortunately was unable to win the big one. He claimed that the HOF fame voters back then were more lenient than they are now, and that super bowl rings is all that matters in this day and age. He's clearly delusional. We argued for hours on the subject; he said manning was a choke artist and played half his games in an air-conditioned dome, I brought up the tuck rule, spy gate, etc. Our argument looked exactly like the Brady vs. Manning threads that always pop up around here. Once Peyton retires, it's very likely that he'll hold every major passing record in the books. I find it very hard to comprehend why someone would think he wouldn't be in the hall had he not a super bowl. And I believe that Tom Brady would be in the hall of fame as well, even if he went 0-3 in the super bowl.

So, our argument made me think think of this: Would Tom Brady and Peyton Manning still be hall of famers if they had not won a super bowl? (ie if Brady was 0-3 and Manning was 0-2). I think the obvious answer is yes, but I would like to hear otherwise.

 

[B Maverick]

sounds like an arguement a couple friends on mine had. One was adamant that Dilfer was a better qb then Marino since Dilfer has a SB Ring.

Unfortunately one thing is true, a QB is measured by SB rings. Does it preclude him from getting into the HOF? I dont think so, but if its close it may be a deciding factor. IMO Manning gets in regardless of rings. He is the QB most current ones are measured against. Without one, he would be the next Marino but his stats, longevity and grasp of the game would get him in.

Brady would be more difficult. ITS JUST MY OPINION but without the rings i am not sure Brady would be a lock. I can be convinced since i havent really looked at it, but without the rings, RIGHT NOW, i dont think Brady is a HOF lock. With the rings he is.

Again, before you blast me on this, show me why i am wrong. Its just my perception.

 

[Raider Nation]

sounds like an arguement a couple friends on mine had. One was adamant that Dilfer was a better qb then Marino since Dilfer has a SB Ring.

This person should never be allowed to speak again.

 

[Road Dogg]

What if you took away their TD passes?

then would they be?

how about if you took away THEIR ARMS!!!!

 

[B Maverick]

sounds like an arguement a couple friends on mine had. One was adamant that Dilfer was a better qb then Marino since Dilfer has a SB Ring.

This person should never be allowed to speak again.

I agree, but it shows how much a SB ring is weighted by some fans.

 

[David Yudkin]

Both are multiple time league MVPs, so yes. Team records wise, both have won a ton percentage wise in the regular season. Manning will end up as the all time leader in almost every category out there.

If you asked about Brady several years ago, he would have been more borderline.

 

[tones]

I'm a Brady guy, Patriots fan and season ticket holder. While I think Brady is a great QB if he doesn't make it to any super bowls I don't know how special he is. One magic year with Moss where he set some records. I don't know if that is enough in the "passing statistics steroid era". Manning should have all the records and if he didn't make it to a super bowl he would just be like Marino.

I have no problems with all that. I don't think or play that silly game of one takes away from the other. Come on those two while they desperatly want to beat each other catch up a couple of times a year to compare notes.

 

[northern exposure]

Jim Kelly led the Buffalo Bills to 4 straight SuperBowls in the early 90's. The Bills went 0-4. In 2002, in Kelly's first year of eligibility, he was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

/thread.

 

[cvnpoka]

manning would be slam dunk first ballot regardless. brady would still make it pretty easily, maybe even first ballot.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

sounds like an arguement a couple friends on mine had. One was adamant that Dilfer was a better qb then Marino since Dilfer has a SB Ring.

This person should never be allowed to speak again.

I agree, but it shows how much a SB ring is weighted by some fans.

Well if some one wanted to weigh in the value of a Super Bowl ring when comparing Marino to say a Kurt Warner, that's one thing. But Dilfer? That's just .

 

[SWC]

what is the point of a question about this i mean what is you ripped of joe montanas arm when he was 12 would he still be a hof qb who knows and what if indians had laser guns and blasted europenas when they came over would there even be football and would walter payton have existed or played football who knows but i do know that bart starr would still have been good because he was really fn good

 

[shortbow]

Okay, so I got into a very heated argument with my roommate last night about the importance of super bowl rings. It started out by him saying that Tom Brady was better than Peyton Manning, and it escalated to him saying that Peyton wouldn't even be considered for the Hall of Fame if it wasn't for his one super bowl win. I quickly asked him about Dan Marino, one of the greatest QBs to play the game, but who unfortunately was unable to win the big one. He claimed that the HOF fame voters back then were more lenient than they are now, and that super bowl rings is all that matters in this day and age. He's clearly delusional. We argued for hours on the subject; he said manning was a choke artist and played half his games in an air-conditioned dome, I brought up the tuck rule, spy gate, etc. Our argument looked exactly like the Brady vs. Manning threads that always pop up around here. Once Peyton retires, it's very likely that he'll hold every major passing record in the books. I find it very hard to comprehend why someone would think he wouldn't be in the hall had he not a super bowl. And I believe that Tom Brady would be in the hall of fame as well, even if he went 0-3 in the super bowl.

So, our argument made me think think of this: Would Tom Brady and Peyton Manning still be hall of famers if they had not won a super bowl? (ie if Brady was 0-3 and Manning was 0-2). I think the obvious answer is yes, but I would like to hear otherwise.

Except for all the ones Brady has, including most superbowl victories.On this dumb topic, yes both of them wouldnt just be considered they would both be HoF's, they are both better than marino minus the rings.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

What if you took away their TD passes?then would they be?how about if you took away THEIR ARMS!!!!

 

[Raider Nation]

Okay, so I got into a very heated argument with my roommate last night about the importance of super bowl rings. It started out by him saying that Tom Brady was better than Peyton Manning, and it escalated to him saying that Peyton wouldn't even be considered for the Hall of Fame if it wasn't for his one super bowl win. I quickly asked him about Dan Marino, one of the greatest QBs to play the game, but who unfortunately was unable to win the big one. He claimed that the HOF fame voters back then were more lenient than they are now, and that super bowl rings is all that matters in this day and age. He's clearly delusional. We argued for hours on the subject; he said manning was a choke artist and played half his games in an air-conditioned dome, I brought up the tuck rule, spy gate, etc. Our argument looked exactly like the Brady vs. Manning threads that always pop up around here. Once Peyton retires, it's very likely that he'll hold every major passing record in the books. I find it very hard to comprehend why someone would think he wouldn't be in the hall had he not a super bowl. And I believe that Tom Brady would be in the hall of fame as well, even if he went 0-3 in the super bowl.

So, our argument made me think think of this: Would Tom Brady and Peyton Manning still be hall of famers if they had not won a super bowl? (ie if Brady was 0-3 and Manning was 0-2). I think the obvious answer is yes, but I would like to hear otherwise.

Except for all the ones Brady has, including most superbowl victories.

Ah, yes. My favorite passing record... SUPER BOWL VICTORIES!

 

[shortbow]

Okay, so I got into a very heated argument with my roommate last night about the importance of super bowl rings. It started out by him saying that Tom Brady was better than Peyton Manning, and it escalated to him saying that Peyton wouldn't even be considered for the Hall of Fame if it wasn't for his one super bowl win. I quickly asked him about Dan Marino, one of the greatest QBs to play the game, but who unfortunately was unable to win the big one. He claimed that the HOF fame voters back then were more lenient than they are now, and that super bowl rings is all that matters in this day and age. He's clearly delusional. We argued for hours on the subject; he said manning was a choke artist and played half his games in an air-conditioned dome, I brought up the tuck rule, spy gate, etc. Our argument looked exactly like the Brady vs. Manning threads that always pop up around here. Once Peyton retires, it's very likely that he'll hold every major passing record in the books. I find it very hard to comprehend why someone would think he wouldn't be in the hall had he not a super bowl. And I believe that Tom Brady would be in the hall of fame as well, even if he went 0-3 in the super bowl.

So, our argument made me think think of this: Would Tom Brady and Peyton Manning still be hall of famers if they had not won a super bowl? (ie if Brady was 0-3 and Manning was 0-2). I think the obvious answer is yes, but I would like to hear otherwise.

Except for all the ones Brady has, including most superbowl victories.

Ah, yes. My favorite passing record... SUPER BOWL VICTORIES!

Lol im good at looking like an ###, obviously thought it said QB records, synonymous idk.

 

[moleculo]

Per my analysis (which is based on regular season performance only), Peyton Manning = QB3 and Brady = QB5 of all time. This analysis is based on repeatedly leading dominant offenses.

Both guys are clearly HoF worthy regardless of their post-season success.

some HoF QB's w/o rings (to show that rings are important, but not a requirement):

Marino

Kelly

Moon

Tarkenton

the first three, BTW, were inducted into the HoF within the past decade.

 

[Godsbrother]

What if you took away their TD passes?

then would they be?

how about if you took away THEIR ARMS!!!!

This would have been a good thing for some of the Steelers QBs of the 80's.Back on subject: Manning is a lock, Brady very close but probably not.

 

[Tau837]

Except for all the ones Brady has, including most superbowl victories.

Brady doesn't hold the record for most Super Bowl victories.

 

[Tau837]

Per my analysis (which is based on regular season performance only), Peyton Manning = QB3 and Brady = QB5 of all time. This analysis is based on repeatedly leading dominant offenses.

Both guys are clearly HoF worthy regardless of their post-season success.

some HoF QB's w/o rings (to show that rings are important, but not a requirement):

Marino

Kelly

Moon

Tarkenton

the first three, BTW, were inducted into the HoF within the past decade.

There are 23 modern era QBs in the HOF and we know the next 2 (Warner, Favre) who will be inducted. Of those 25 QBs, I believe only 7 failed to win at least one Super Bowl, AFL title, or NFL title:Marino

Kelly

Moon

Tarkenton

Fouts

Tittle

Jurgensen

I'm pretty sure that with the exception of Kelly, every one of those guys retired among the most accomplished passers (e.g., among top few all time leaders in passing yards) in league history at the time. Kelly made up for not being as statistically accomplished by making four straight Super Bowls.

As I understand the question, we are to assume everything is the same except the Super Bowl wins for these guys were instead losses. In that case, there is zero doubt either would be HOFers. There is no need to even question Manning, who will end up as arguably the most statistically accomplished passer ever. And Brady is a multiple MVP winner who had arguably the best season ever for a QB in 2007 and in this scenario would have guided his team to 4 Super Bowls and lost... he would be much more deserving than Kelly and probably quite a few other HOF QBs in that scenario.

 

[Reepicheep]

What if you took away their TD passes?then would they be?how about if you took away THEIR ARMS!!!!

Genius - this it the perfect way to respond to pretty much any "hypothetical alternate universe" argument.We have enough raging debates about QB rankings as it is, do we really need to go making up fantasy scenarios as the basis for additional QB debates?

 

[Mr. Mojo]

Aikman would be an argument for rings counting more than ability.

He just wasn't that great but made it into the Hall immediately.

 

[JohnnyU]

If you take away all of Barry Sanders runs over 50+ yards.......

 

[Gachi]

Aikman would be an argument for rings counting more than ability.He just wasn't that great but made it into the Hall immediately.

I don't know who's more overrated, Aikman or Favre.

 

[northern exposure]

what is the point of a question about this i mean what is you ripped of joe montanas arm when he was 12 would he still be a hof qb who knows and what if indians had laser guns and blasted europenas when they came over would there even be football and would walter payton have existed or played football who knows but i do know that bart starr would still have been good because he was really fn good

First, are you allergic to punctuation? Secondly, what????

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Okay, so I got into a very heated argument with my roommate last night about the importance of super bowl rings. It started out by him saying that Tom Brady was better than Peyton Manning, and it escalated to him saying that Peyton wouldn't even be considered for the Hall of Fame if it wasn't for his one super bowl win. I quickly asked him about Dan Marino, one of the greatest QBs to play the game, but who unfortunately was unable to win the big one. He claimed that the HOF fame voters back then were more lenient than they are now, and that super bowl rings is all that matters in this day and age. He's clearly delusional. We argued for hours on the subject; he said manning was a choke artist and played half his games in an air-conditioned dome, I brought up the tuck rule, spy gate, etc. Our argument looked exactly like the Brady vs. Manning threads that always pop up around here. Once Peyton retires, it's very likely that he'll hold every major passing record in the books. I find it very hard to comprehend why someone would think he wouldn't be in the hall had he not a super bowl. And I believe that Tom Brady would be in the hall of fame as well, even if he went 0-3 in the super bowl.

So, our argument made me think think of this: Would Tom Brady and Peyton Manning still be hall of famers if they had not won a super bowl? (ie if Brady was 0-3 and Manning was 0-2). I think the obvious answer is yes, but I would like to hear otherwise.

Except for all the ones Brady has, including most superbowl victories.

Ah, yes. My favorite passing record... SUPER BOWL VICTORIES!

that one's the best

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Except for all the ones Brady has, including most superbowl victories.

Brady doesn't hold the record for most Super Bowl victories.

Who does?

 

[JohnnyU]

Except for all the ones Brady has, including most superbowl victories.

Brady doesn't hold the record for most Super Bowl victories.

Who does?

Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana with 4

 

[Adebisi]

Manning would be a lock.

At this point in time, Brady, I think, could go either way - but by the end of his career, he'd also get in.

 

[Tau837]

Except for all the ones Brady has, including most superbowl victories.

Brady doesn't hold the record for most Super Bowl victories.

Who does?

Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana with 4

Isn't this common knowledge?

 

[Shutout]

Okay, so I got into a very heated argument with my roommate last night about the importance of super bowl rings. It started out by him saying that Tom Brady was better than Peyton Manning, and it escalated to him saying that Peyton wouldn't even be considered for the Hall of Fame if it wasn't for his one super bowl win. I quickly asked him about Dan Marino, one of the greatest QBs to play the game, but who unfortunately was unable to win the big one. He claimed that the HOF fame voters back then were more lenient than they are now, and that super bowl rings is all that matters in this day and age. He's clearly delusional. We argued for hours on the subject; he said manning was a choke artist and played half his games in an air-conditioned dome, I brought up the tuck rule, spy gate, etc. Our argument looked exactly like the Brady vs. Manning threads that always pop up around here. Once Peyton retires, it's very likely that he'll hold every major passing record in the books. I find it very hard to comprehend why someone would think he wouldn't be in the hall had he not a super bowl. And I believe that Tom Brady would be in the hall of fame as well, even if he went 0-3 in the super bowl.

So, our argument made me think think of this: Would Tom Brady and Peyton Manning still be hall of famers if they had not won a super bowl? (ie if Brady was 0-3 and Manning was 0-2). I think the obvious answer is yes, but I would like to hear otherwise.

Except for all the ones Brady has, including most superbowl victories.On this dumb topic, yes both of them wouldnt just be considered they would both be HoF's, they are both better than marino minus the rings.

Can't let that go through. You can make an argument for Manning given the body of work vs. Marino, but time has either eroded your memory or you really weren't watching back then. Marino was an AMAZING QB (and, no, I'm not a Dolphins fan AT ALL). But watching him play over the years, he was on a single-hand count of best ball throwers I have ever seen. He could do it all. He could do it quickly. he was smart, tough, etc. He held significant QB passing records for long periods of time (like I said,I'm not a fan so he may still hold some I'm not thinking of). He was simply flat out amazing.Brady, on the other hand, is great...he's the golden boy...he's forever associated with the Patriots dynasty. But he's not the QB Marino was and certainly, without the rings, he's probably never considered a direct comparison to Marino.

Had brady went 0 for in SuperBowls, he wouldn't even be seen the same way as Jim Kelly is. You have to remember, Jim Kelly went to 4 STRAIGHT superbowls and is synonymous with what drove those teams (the K gun offense). he also was an accomplished QB before coming to the NFL.

I think those two would be seen as very different from one another also and four spread out random losses in the SuperBowl by Brady may have been viewed by critics as "just a guy who couldn't win the big one". Kelly gets a credit of having a sustained excellence in that period, being the center point of the team, and having had lost to teams that are now viewed as some of the best of the era. A random loss by Brady to the Rams, Panthers, etc here and there would have probably looked really bad on him (especially the loss to the Giants in which everyone thought the Patriots SHOULD have won that game without a doubt).

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Absolutely, both are HOFers regardless of the SB's and because of them it's a no brainer. Both could die today and get into the HOF.

 

[Sam Quentin]

sounds like an arguement a couple friends on mine had. One was adamant that Dilfer was a better qb then Marino since Dilfer has a SB Ring.

This person should never be allowed to speak again.

I agree, but it shows how much a SB ring is weighted by some fans.

It just goes to just how tangential results are weighted in favor of analysis and ability by some people.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Jim Kelly led the Buffalo Bills to 4 straight SuperBowls in the early 90's. The Bills went 0-4. In 2002, in Kelly's first year of eligibility, he was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame./thread.

Not at all...going to 4 straight Super Bowls and revolutionizing offense like Kelly did was HoF for sure. Brady with no rings or not going to the Super Bowl, probably not getting into the HoF. Manning though still would, no doubt about it. And Brady backers, don't get hostile about it. He's solid but no rings or no trips to the big game and he likely is not getting in, that doesn't take anything away from the 4 SB he went to and the 3 rings he has. Terry Bradshaw and Bob Griese were not tremendous QBs but they won a lot of rings and played in a lot of Super Bowls so they got in. And for the record I think Brady is way better than Bradshaw and Griese but they were different eras.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Taking away some of their signature moments would just leave a sustained body of HOF work. IMO it would not effect matters in the least. Now if you took away their thumbs their senior year of college, that would be another matter.

Sorry, serious answer. Manning is a mortal lock with or without the ring. Brady, probably so, though by the time he comes up for consideration we will be used to inflated numbers from the pass happy era and he will be less impressive. Brees, Rivers, Rodgers, will all be getting consideration sort of around his time (Rodgers a few years after but his shadow will loom large at that time), as will Roethlisberger and perhaps Vick if he comes on a bit (Vick suffers from his absence). Farve and Manning will have just got in. Young guns like Bradford and Ryan will be at the height of their careers. A guy like Warner who may have to wait due to his down seasons and shorter career will be coming around yet again on the ballet. Absent his rings, and with so many great players in the era he might have suffered some without the rings.

I also believe there will be a bit of hater backlash towards Brady. People who hate the Pats, Bellicheck, or cheating will try to tear him down.

 

[Tau837]

Can't let that go through. You can make an argument for Manning given the body of work vs. Marino, but time has either eroded your memory or you really weren't watching back then. Marino was an AMAZING QB (and, no, I'm not a Dolphins fan AT ALL). But watching him play over the years, he was on a single-hand count of best ball throwers I have ever seen. He could do it all. He could do it quickly. he was smart, tough, etc. He held significant QB passing records for long periods of time (like I said,I'm not a fan so he may still hold some I'm not thinking of). He was simply flat out amazing.

Brady, on the other hand, is great...he's the golden boy...he's forever associated with the Patriots dynasty. But he's not the QB Marino was and certainly, without the rings, he's probably never considered a direct comparison to Marino.

Had brady went 0 for in SuperBowls, he wouldn't even be seen the same way as Jim Kelly is. You have to remember, Jim Kelly went to 4 STRAIGHT superbowls and is synonymous with what drove those teams (the K gun offense). he also was an accomplished QB before coming to the NFL.

I think those two would be seen as very different from one another also and four spread out random losses in the SuperBowl by Brady may have been viewed by critics as "just a guy who couldn't win the big one". Kelly gets a credit of having a sustained excellence in that period, being the center point of the team, and having had lost to teams that are now viewed as some of the best of the era. A random loss by Brady to the Rams, Panthers, etc here and there would have probably looked really bad on him (especially the loss to the Giants in which everyone thought the Patriots SHOULD have won that game without a doubt).

This is laughable.Right now, if everything was the same for Brady other than the 3 Super Bowl wins were all Super Bowl losses (and further assuming that Brady would not have won any Super Bowl MVP awards), here is how Brady would compare with Kelly:

Regular season record: Brady 111-32 (.776); Kelly 101-59 (.631)

Postseason record: 11-8 (.579); Kelly 9-8 (.529)

Number of major awards won: Brady 4 (2 MVPs, 1 OPOY, 1 Comeback POY); Kelly 0

Number of 1st team All Pro selections: Brady 2; Kelly 1

Number of Pro Bowl selections: Brady 6; Kelly 5

Number of times leading NFL in passing yards: Brady 2; Kelly 0

Number of times leading NFL in passing TDs: Brady 3; Kelly 1

Number of times leading NFL in passer rating: Brady 2; Kelly 1

Career passer rating: Brady 95.2; Kelly 84.4

Career TDs: Brady 261; Kelly 237

Career interceptions: Brady 103, Kelly 175

Brady has the advantage in every single point of comparison above. Brady is considerably more accomplished than Kelly without even considering his rings.

 

[Tau837]

Jim Kelly led the Buffalo Bills to 4 straight SuperBowls in the early 90's. The Bills went 0-4. In 2002, in Kelly's first year of eligibility, he was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame./thread.

Not at all...going to 4 straight Super Bowls and revolutionizing offense like Kelly did was HoF for sure. Brady with no rings or not going to the Super Bowl, probably not getting into the HoF. Manning though still would, no doubt about it. And Brady backers, don't get hostile about it. He's solid but no rings or no trips to the big game and he likely is not getting in, that doesn't take anything away from the 4 SB he went to and the 3 rings he has. Terry Bradshaw and Bob Griese were not tremendous QBs but they won a lot of rings and played in a lot of Super Bowls so they got in. And for the record I think Brady is way better than Bradshaw and Griese but they were different eras.

You are wrong about Brady. Look at the list of accomplishments I just posted. For one thing, he won 2 MVP awards, which had nothing to do with Super Bowls. To my knowledge, there are no multiple MVP winners who are eligible for the HOF and not in. (Favre, Warner, and Peyton Manning will all be in once eligible.)

 

[David Yudkin]

Jim Kelly led the Buffalo Bills to 4 straight SuperBowls in the early 90's. The Bills went 0-4. In 2002, in Kelly's first year of eligibility, he was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame./thread.

Not at all...going to 4 straight Super Bowls and revolutionizing offense like Kelly did was HoF for sure. Brady with no rings or not going to the Super Bowl, probably not getting into the HoF. Manning though still would, no doubt about it. And Brady backers, don't get hostile about it. He's solid but no rings or no trips to the big game and he likely is not getting in, that doesn't take anything away from the 4 SB he went to and the 3 rings he has. Terry Bradshaw and Bob Griese were not tremendous QBs but they won a lot of rings and played in a lot of Super Bowls so they got in. And for the record I think Brady is way better than Bradshaw and Griese but they were different eras.

I think you are a little off in your assessment. The concept was not that they never GOT to the SB, it's that they never won it. Either way, Brady would still have two MVPs (and no multi time MVP winner has been kept out IIRC).He also would have a 111-32 regular season as a starter (.776), which is insane. I also believe he is the only QB to have four 14+ win seasons. He also currently has a higher passer rating than Peyton, the guy you just said was a lock.

 

[Kevin Ashcraft]

They would both be locks.

One name I think maybe fits in here is Donovan McNabb. He only got to 1 as a starting QB. He ha s some HOFer in his PFR comps

He is top-15 in completions, attempts & yards....but below 22 in TD passes and passer rating. How much does his rushing ability early on help him?

In my opinion, he is in, but maybe not first-ballot.

 

[David Yudkin]

They would both be locks.

One name I think maybe fits in here is Donovan McNabb. He only got to 1 as a starting QB. He ha s some HOFer in his PFR comps

He is top-15 in completions, attempts & yards....but below 22 in TD passes and passer rating. How much does his rushing ability early on help him?

In my opinion, he is in, but maybe not first-ballot.

IIRC, in other HOF threads the consesus for McNabb was no, based on getting to a lot of conference championship games and only 1 SB (with no rings to show for it). I tend to think he has a shot, but more people discussing it felt otherwise.

 

[Adebisi]

I also believe there will be a bit of hater backlash towards Brady. People who hate the Pats, Bellicheck, or c

No one would hate the Patriots if they hadn't won any Super Bowls.

 

[northern exposure]

Jim Kelly led the Buffalo Bills to 4 straight SuperBowls in the early 90's. The Bills went 0-4. In 2002, in Kelly's first year of eligibility, he was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

/thread.

Not at all...going to 4 straight Super Bowls and revolutionizing offense like Kelly did was HoF for sure. Brady with no rings or not going to the Super Bowl, probably not getting into the HoF. Manning though still would, no doubt about it. And Brady backers, don't get hostile about it. He's solid but no rings or no trips to the big game and he likely is not getting in, that doesn't take anything away from the 4 SB he went to and the 3 rings he has. Terry Bradshaw and Bob Griese were not tremendous QBs but they won a lot of rings and played in a lot of Super Bowls so they got in. And for the record I think Brady is way better than Bradshaw and Griese but they were different eras.

Huh? Which QB holds the record for most TD passes in a single season? Give up...It's Tom Brady with 50 in the 2007 season. Which QB has been named the Offensive Player of the Year 2 of the last 4 seasons? Again it's Tom Brady. Also his current streak of 335 attempts without a pick is a league record. Brady has compiled these stats without something most HoF QBs have had, a HoF WR or TE as a target. Sure he had Moss for a few seasons, but for the most part he hasn't had that luxury. The premise of the question was "Would Manning or Brady make the HoF if they had no SuperBowl victories?" The answer is obviously Yes. So, you can twist the question all you like (by making it "What if Brady had no trips to the big game?"), you are still wrong. You must be used to this by now.

 

[Devine Intervention]

I also believe there will be a bit of hater backlash towards Brady. People who hate the Pats, Bellicheck, or c

No one would hate the Patriots if they hadn't won any Super Bowls cheated.

 

[Bri]

they'd be Drew Bledsoe then

 

[TheWheel]

For one, you can't take away Brady or Manning's SBs so the argument is very difficult to sort out. Does this mean that Jake Delhomme or Matt Hasselbeck or some random guy has 3 SB rings? Without a super bowl ring, Manning and Brady are both chokers. They both make the Hall of Fame but are not first ballad.

Two, basing a QBs skill simply on SB rings is really stupid. Charlie Batch has more super bowl rings than 90% of the QBs out there. Remember, there are 50 other players on the team. Each of them can win or lose a game just like a QB can. You have to consider the player in terms of a team. Peyton Manning won a SB despite his defense. The Ravens defense won a SB despite their QB (Trent Dilfer).

Three, can someone explain to me why the media chooses who gets into the hall of fame? They are probably the least impartial group around.

 

[dhockster]

Jim Kelly led the Buffalo Bills to 4 straight SuperBowls in the early 90's. The Bills went 0-4. In 2002, in Kelly's first year of eligibility, he was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame./thread.

Not at all...going to 4 straight Super Bowls and revolutionizing offense like Kelly did was HoF for sure. Brady with no rings or not going to the Super Bowl, probably not getting into the HoF. Manning though still would, no doubt about it. And Brady backers, don't get hostile about it. He's solid but no rings or no trips to the big game and he likely is not getting in, that doesn't take anything away from the 4 SB he went to and the 3 rings he has. Terry Bradshaw and Bob Griese were not tremendous QBs but they won a lot of rings and played in a lot of Super Bowls so they got in. And for the record I think Brady is way better than Bradshaw and Griese but they were different eras.

As others have said, Brady has an insane regular season record, has won 2 MVP's, has thrown 50 TD passes in a season, and has been the only QB to lead his team to a 16-0 regular season (the other QB who went 14-0 happens to be in the HOF).All of this with only one skill position player who will probably get into the hall of fame (Moss). No other skill position players that Brady played with willcome close to the Hall of fame.How could you say he probably would not get into the hall of fame without his super bowl victories? I can't think of any regular season resumes better than Bradys (Manning's is equivalent).

 

[Shutout]

Can't let that go through. You can make an argument for Manning given the body of work vs. Marino, but time has either eroded your memory or you really weren't watching back then. Marino was an AMAZING QB (and, no, I'm not a Dolphins fan AT ALL). But watching him play over the years, he was on a single-hand count of best ball throwers I have ever seen. He could do it all. He could do it quickly. he was smart, tough, etc. He held significant QB passing records for long periods of time (like I said,I'm not a fan so he may still hold some I'm not thinking of). He was simply flat out amazing.

Brady, on the other hand, is great...he's the golden boy...he's forever associated with the Patriots dynasty. But he's not the QB Marino was and certainly, without the rings, he's probably never considered a direct comparison to Marino.

Had brady went 0 for in SuperBowls, he wouldn't even be seen the same way as Jim Kelly is. You have to remember, Jim Kelly went to 4 STRAIGHT superbowls and is synonymous with what drove those teams (the K gun offense). he also was an accomplished QB before coming to the NFL.

I think those two would be seen as very different from one another also and four spread out random losses in the SuperBowl by Brady may have been viewed by critics as "just a guy who couldn't win the big one". Kelly gets a credit of having a sustained excellence in that period, being the center point of the team, and having had lost to teams that are now viewed as some of the best of the era. A random loss by Brady to the Rams, Panthers, etc here and there would have probably looked really bad on him (especially the loss to the Giants in which everyone thought the Patriots SHOULD have won that game without a doubt).

This is laughable.Right now, if everything was the same for Brady other than the 3 Super Bowl wins were all Super Bowl losses (and further assuming that Brady would not have won any Super Bowl MVP awards), here is how Brady would compare with Kelly:

Regular season record: Brady 111-32 (.776); Kelly 101-59 (.631)

Postseason record: 11-8 (.579); Kelly 9-8 (.529)

Number of major awards won: Brady 4 (2 MVPs, 1 OPOY, 1 Comeback POY); Kelly 0

Number of 1st team All Pro selections: Brady 2; Kelly 1

Number of Pro Bowl selections: Brady 6; Kelly 5

Number of times leading NFL in passing yards: Brady 2; Kelly 0

Number of times leading NFL in passing TDs: Brady 3; Kelly 1

Number of times leading NFL in passer rating: Brady 2; Kelly 1

Career passer rating: Brady 95.2; Kelly 84.4

Career TDs: Brady 261; Kelly 237

Career interceptions: Brady 103, Kelly 175

Brady has the advantage in every single point of comparison above. Brady is considerably more accomplished than Kelly without even considering his rings.

Stats are REAL easy to present when you pick and choose your own set of numbers to present. But even if we accept this as the complet and empirical information, its still only half the equation. The other half is, if you are old enough to have watched the game when Kelly was playing in the NFL and before, and you recall it, is the reality that people took from watching him play IN HIS ERA. That is a HUGE thing that a lot of people miss (especially today where everything is about googling numbers and running them through a spread sheet). But if you weren't around and remembering really well just what it was that he meant to that team and the type of perennial dominant teams he was playing against in his own era, a lot is lost.

You can Say Brady had this number and another guy had something less all you want, but that can be about as meaningless as anything else you may want to state as a number. The proof is how they were perceived when they played and that gets lost as time goes by. But the perception of Jim Kelly, who is in the HAll of fame already so apparently a good number of people agree, is that he played at an excellent level for a long time during an era that had some pretty dominating teams with good runs; some of them pre-free agenct dynasty stretch runs. The perception of Brady is that he is very very good, but is a part of a bigger thing where you have to acknoledge Belichick, the great defense on some of those teams, the lack of a persistent continually dominat team, the free agency management of teams in the era, etc. he difference is Kelly is remembered as the driving force and leader of a great buffalo team and Brady is thought of as the leader (but not necessarily what makes the team go) of a very good team that has had several good years.

THE difference that should be apparent to you is, Kelly is already in the HAll of Fame despite not ever winning a SB. That should tell you how people aknowledged his talent and weighed it against the players/teams of the era.

Brady, on the other hand, people are STILL wondering how they lost to the Giants, surprised they beat the Rams, and aren't really impressed that they beat the Panthers who went from 1-15 the previous year.

There is a big comparison diference between a guy that held on to beat a team that had been 1-15 the previous year and the guy that faced a cowboys teams twice that many consider to be the team of the decade and has a handful of HOF'ers.

The only thing laughable about this is that the number on the page means only such much if you don't recall the play on the field at that time. If it were just numbers, we could argue that Matt Millen and his 4 SB wins is better than Brady and his three. Now that is laughable.

For the record, I DO think Brady is a great player in today's game and I believe he will be put into context of his time and his role in the game over the time of his career will put him in the Hall of Fame. But that is very different than comparing how great a player was that played at a different time.

 

[Tau837]

Which QB holds the record for most TD passes in a single season? Give up...It's Tom Brady with 50 in the 2007 season. Which QB has been named the Offensive Player of the Year 2 of the last 4 seasons? Again it's Tom Brady. Also his current streak of 335 attempts without a pick is a league record. Brady has compiled these stats without something most HoF QBs have had, a HoF WR or TE as a target. Sure he had Moss for a few seasons, but for the most part he hasn't had that luxury.

 

[Tau837]

This is really one of the worst overall arguments I've seen around here in quite some time.

Can't let that go through. You can make an argument for Manning given the body of work vs. Marino, but time has either eroded your memory or you really weren't watching back then. Marino was an AMAZING QB (and, no, I'm not a Dolphins fan AT ALL). But watching him play over the years, he was on a single-hand count of best ball throwers I have ever seen. He could do it all. He could do it quickly. he was smart, tough, etc. He held significant QB passing records for long periods of time (like I said,I'm not a fan so he may still hold some I'm not thinking of). He was simply flat out amazing.

Brady, on the other hand, is great...he's the golden boy...he's forever associated with the Patriots dynasty. But he's not the QB Marino was and certainly, without the rings, he's probably never considered a direct comparison to Marino.

Had brady went 0 for in SuperBowls, he wouldn't even be seen the same way as Jim Kelly is. You have to remember, Jim Kelly went to 4 STRAIGHT superbowls and is synonymous with what drove those teams (the K gun offense). he also was an accomplished QB before coming to the NFL.

I think those two would be seen as very different from one another also and four spread out random losses in the SuperBowl by Brady may have been viewed by critics as "just a guy who couldn't win the big one". Kelly gets a credit of having a sustained excellence in that period, being the center point of the team, and having had lost to teams that are now viewed as some of the best of the era. A random loss by Brady to the Rams, Panthers, etc here and there would have probably looked really bad on him (especially the loss to the Giants in which everyone thought the Patriots SHOULD have won that game without a doubt).

This is laughable.Right now, if everything was the same for Brady other than the 3 Super Bowl wins were all Super Bowl losses (and further assuming that Brady would not have won any Super Bowl MVP awards), here is how Brady would compare with Kelly:

Regular season record: Brady 111-32 (.776); Kelly 101-59 (.631)

Postseason record: 11-8 (.579); Kelly 9-8 (.529)

Number of major awards won: Brady 4 (2 MVPs, 1 OPOY, 1 Comeback POY); Kelly 0

Number of 1st team All Pro selections: Brady 2; Kelly 1

Number of Pro Bowl selections: Brady 6; Kelly 5

Number of times leading NFL in passing yards: Brady 2; Kelly 0

Number of times leading NFL in passing TDs: Brady 3; Kelly 1

Number of times leading NFL in passer rating: Brady 2; Kelly 1

Career passer rating: Brady 95.2; Kelly 84.4

Career TDs: Brady 261; Kelly 237

Career interceptions: Brady 103, Kelly 175

Brady has the advantage in every single point of comparison above. Brady is considerably more accomplished than Kelly without even considering his rings.

Stats are REAL easy to present when you pick and choose your own set of numbers to present. But even if we accept this as the complet and empirical information, its still only half the equation.The other half is, if you are old enough to have watched the game when Kelly was playing in the NFL and before, and you recall it, is the reality that people took from watching him play IN HIS ERA. That is a HUGE thing that a lot of people miss (especially today where everything is about googling numbers and running them through a spread sheet). But if you weren't around and remembering really well just what it was that he meant to that team and the type of perennial dominant teams he was playing against in his own era, a lot is lost.

1. Major awards won (which by the way is now 5-0 in favor of Brady since he won this year's OPOY since my post) is not era-specific. Number of times leading the league in passing yards, passing TDs, and passer rating are not era-specific. Winning percentage is not era-specific.2. Why don't you pick and choose your own set of numbers that shows Kelly to be greater than Brady, since it is apparently REAL easy.

You can Say Brady had this number and another guy had something less all you want, but that can be about as meaningless as anything else you may want to state as a number. The proof is how they were perceived when they played and that gets lost as time goes by. But the perception of Jim Kelly, who is in the HAll of fame already so apparently a good number of people agree, is that he played at an excellent level for a long time during an era that had some pretty dominating teams with good runs; some of them pre-free agenct dynasty stretch runs. The perception of Brady is that he is very very good, but is a part of a bigger thing where you have to acknoledge Belichick, the great defense on some of those teams, the lack of a persistent continually dominat team, the free agency management of teams in the era, etc. he difference is Kelly is remembered as the driving force and leader of a great buffalo team and Brady is thought of as the leader (but not necessarily what makes the team go) of a very good team that has had several good years.

So we have to consider Belichick... but not HOF coach Marv Levy? We have to consider the good defenses Brady had... but not the good defenses Kelly had? Are we not to consider that Kelly played with HOF teammates Thurman Thomas, James Lofton, and Bruce Smith and probable future HOFer Andre Reed?Not sure what pre-free agent dynasty stretch runs means exactly, but NFL free agency began in 1978, long before Kelly played in the NFL.

I really don't think you could be more wrong on this comparison.

 

[northern exposure]

Which QB holds the record for most TD passes in a single season? Give up...It's Tom Brady with 50 in the 2007 season. Which QB has been named the Offensive Player of the Year 2 of the last 4 seasons? Again it's Tom Brady. Also his current streak of 335 attempts without a pick is a league record. Brady has compiled these stats without something most HoF QBs have had, a HoF WR or TE as a target. Sure he had Moss for a few seasons, but for the most part he hasn't had that luxury.

What part don't you get? Brady and Moss were on the same team for the 2007,2008, 2009 and only 4 games in the 2010 season. Brady was named the Offensive Player Of The Year for the 2010 season when he only had Moss for 4 games. Is that better? Brady has been a starter in the NFL since the 2001 season. Brady won 3 SuperBowls before Moss even arrived in New England. I guess in my post you missed the words after the part you bolded. Or do you care to tell which HoF WR or TE Brady has had at his disposal other than Moss?

 

[Adebisi]

Which QB holds the record for most TD passes in a single season? Give up...It's Tom Brady with 50 in the 2007 season. Which QB has been named the Offensive Player of the Year 2 of the last 4 seasons? Again it's Tom Brady. Also his current streak of 335 attempts without a pick is a league record. Brady has compiled these stats without something most HoF QBs have had, a HoF WR or TE as a target. Sure he had Moss for a few seasons, but for the most part he hasn't had that luxury.

What part don't you get? Brady and Moss were on the same team for the 2007,2008, 2009 and only 4 games in the 2010 season. Brady was named the Offensive Player Of The Year for the 2010 season when he only had Moss for 4 games. Is that better? Brady has been a starter in the NFL since the 2001 season. Brady won 3 SuperBowls before Moss even arrived in New England. I guess in my post you missed the words after the part you bolded. Or do you care to tell which HoF WR or TE Brady has had at his disposal other than Moss?

To be fair, Brady only had Moss for a few plays in 2008. Or, I guess to put it more accurately, Moss only had Brady for a few plays in 2008.So I'd put it at less than 1 1/2 seasons.

Corey Dillon would be the next-best skill position player that Brady has worked with. He had one exceptional season, and then two Antowain Smith-like seasons.

After that, I don't even know who I'd rank next. Probably Troy Brown.