If the Patriots win the Super Bowl, is Brady the greatest QB of all ti (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

I like Graham as much as the xext guy, but I'm guessing it is much easier to win a title in a league with 9 or 12 teams than it is to win one in a league with 32 teams.

As for Bradshaw, does anything else besides SB titles matter at QB? Other than rings, I doubt many would put him in the top tier of QBs.

 

[ivnabru]

Montana and Bradshaw never lost a SB, that HAS to mean something..

Why is 3rd place or 19th place better than 2nd place when determining a QBs legacy?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Montana and Bradshaw never lost a SB, that HAS to mean something..

Why is 3rd place or 19th place better than 2nd place when determining a QBs legacy?

Because in the biggest game on the biggest stage in the biggest sport, they didn't come up short.

 

[David Yudkin]

Montana and Bradshaw never lost a SB, that HAS to mean something..

Why is 3rd place or 19th place better than 2nd place when determining a QBs legacy?

Because in the biggest game on the biggest stage in the biggest sport, they didn't come up short.

If people stop and think about it, 4-6 in SBs should be considered a far greater accomplishment than 4-0. Unless people think getting to a SB is a forgone conclusion and a simple thing to accomplish.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Montana and Bradshaw never lost a SB, that HAS to mean something..

Why is 3rd place or 19th place better than 2nd place when determining a QBs legacy?

Because in the biggest game on the biggest stage in the biggest sport, they didn't come up short.

If people stop and think about it, 4-6 in SBs should be considered a far greater accomplishment than 4-0. Unless people think getting to a SB is a forgone conclusion and a simple thing to accomplish.

Day and age... 9-7 teams make super bowls these days.

 

[parrot]

Montana and Bradshaw never lost a SB, that HAS to mean something..

Why is 3rd place or 19th place better than 2nd place when determining a QBs legacy?

Because in the biggest game on the biggest stage in the biggest sport, they didn't come up short.

They just came up short before getting to the biggest stage.

 

[Spike]

No. None of his superbowls should count because the Patriots are cheaters. Anyone can look good when they know the opponents plays from illegal videotaping. Tuck rule my ###

Bitter

Serious question. Has any other team in football done anything against the rules? Five years later, people still complain about spygate no matter how many former coaches say their teams did things just as bad if not worse.

Thank you. Also, numerous coaches said they had been doing the same (the taping) at the same time as the Pats. Belichick was just stupid to have flaunted the rules the season in which the league came down on he and the Pats.But other teams had been doing it through the years.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

No. None of his superbowls should count because the Patriots are cheaters. Anyone can look good when they know the opponents plays from illegal videotaping. Tuck rule my ###

Bitter

Serious question. Has any other team in football done anything against the rules? Five years later, people still complain about spygate no matter how many former coaches say their teams did things just as bad if not worse.

Thank you. Also, numerous coaches said they had been doing the same (the taping) at the same time as the Pats. Belichick was just stupid to have flaunted the rules the season in which the league came down on he and the Pats.But other teams had been doing it through the years.

Still trying to excuse the cheating.

 

[ivnabru]

Montana and Bradshaw never lost a SB, that HAS to mean something..

Why is 3rd place or 19th place better than 2nd place when determining a QBs legacy?

Because in the biggest game on the biggest stage in the biggest sport, they didn't come up short.

So assume the Pats lose.Tim Tebow had more playoff success this year than Tom Brady?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Montana and Bradshaw never lost a SB, that HAS to mean something..

Why is 3rd place or 19th place better than 2nd place when determining a QBs legacy?

Because in the biggest game on the biggest stage in the biggest sport, they didn't come up short.

So assume the Pats lose.Tim Tebow had more playoff success this year than Tom Brady?

No.Don't be silly.

Peyton was 1 SB victory away from having everyone call him the 2nd best ever as a bare minimum, since he lost that game... you simply don't hear anything like it once was.

 

[daveR]

GOAT? Yeah, sure, whatever...

 

[ivnabru]

Montana and Bradshaw never lost a SB, that HAS to mean something..

Why is 3rd place or 19th place better than 2nd place when determining a QBs legacy?

Because in the biggest game on the biggest stage in the biggest sport, they didn't come up short.

So assume the Pats lose.Tim Tebow had more playoff success this year than Tom Brady?

No.Don't be silly.

Peyton was 1 SB victory away from having everyone call him the 2nd best ever as a bare minimum, since he lost that game... you simply don't hear anything like it once was.

That's not the same.A Superbowl victory is a + on a QBs resume without question.

Why is a Superbowl loss a - on a QBs resume, when missing the playoffs is not?

 

[Zeff]

Montana and Bradshaw never lost a SB, that HAS to mean something..

Why is 3rd place or 19th place better than 2nd place when determining a QBs legacy?

Because in the biggest game on the biggest stage in the biggest sport, they didn't come up short.

So assume the Pats lose.Tim Tebow had more playoff success this year than Tom Brady?

It either goes 1. Brady 2. Peyton 3. Tebow 4. Eli, or 1. Eli 2. Peyton 3. Tebow 4. Brady. We're just not sure which, yet.

 

[ivnabru]

Montana and Bradshaw never lost a SB, that HAS to mean something..

Why is 3rd place or 19th place better than 2nd place when determining a QBs legacy?

Because in the biggest game on the biggest stage in the biggest sport, they didn't come up short.

So assume the Pats lose.Tim Tebow had more playoff success this year than Tom Brady?

It either goes 1. Brady 2. Peyton 3. Tebow 4. Eli, or 1. Eli 2. Peyton 3. Tebow 4. Brady. We're just not sure which, yet.

I think Brady/Eli are vying for 1 & 32 not 1 & 4.At least when we're saying a Superbowl loss is the worst outcome possible. Jim Kelly must be the worst QB of all time.

 

[David Yudkin]

No. None of his superbowls should count because the Patriots are cheaters. Anyone can look good when they know the opponents plays from illegal videotaping. Tuck rule my ###

Bitter

Serious question. Has any other team in football done anything against the rules? Five years later, people still complain about spygate no matter how many former coaches say their teams did things just as bad if not worse.

Thank you. Also, numerous coaches said they had been doing the same (the taping) at the same time as the Pats. Belichick was just stupid to have flaunted the rules the season in which the league came down on he and the Pats.But other teams had been doing it through the years.

The league had to send out a memo on several occasions to all teams that the practice of videotaping signals was getting out of control and that the league was going to start enforcing the rule. The Pats got caught the first game after everyone was notified that there was a no tolerance policy. Prior to then, there were others teams doing the same thing . . . they just didn't get caught.Throughout the history of the game there have been plenty of incidents where teams bent or broke the rules. Teams renting hotel rooms overlooking practice facilities and taping opponent's practices. Teams misreporting injuries. Teams tampering with players still under contract on other teams. Teams going through lock rooms trying to steal a copy of a playbook. Teams intentionally ignoring the salary cap. Teams switching kicking balls to make kicks harder. Teams turning on HVAC systems to make FGs more difficult right before the kick. Teams having a team doctor prescribing steroids to most of the team (funny how Steelers fans never bring that one up when they want the Patriots titles vacated).

All in all, there has been a perpetual attempt of gamesmanship and teams trying to get that last possible drop of an advantage going on for years. Who knows if any of these things really made a difference, but teams trying to do things illegal, immoral, and fattening have been going on for years.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

HFS!!!!

Lets rewrite history.

 

[General Tso]

Joe Montana played in the greatest era of football, basically coinciding with his career. Talent wasn't diluted by expansion, there were varied offenses and defenses, and in Montana's era, he had to contend with teams like the mid 80's bears and Giants, who if not all for the presence of each other, would have likely lead any of these teams being a dynasty based on titles. Put it this way, if Brady had to deal with them, he doesn't sniff those titles. The only really great team Brady beat was that Ram team and they had to cheat to do so.

Were you even around in the 80's? Montana was closer to NFL expansion (Seattle and Tampa Bay) than Brady. And don't forget the USFL, which took a LOT of premium talent out of the NFL for much of the decade.

Brady is playing in a 32 team NFL, Montana played in a 28 team NFL. The USFL kept "top talent" out of the league for 2 years, not "much of the decade"

Well, now I know for sure you weren't around in the 80's. The USFL had 3 complete seasons before calling it quits right before the 4th. And yes, they had a lot of "top talent". Three straight Heisman trophy winners went directly from college to the USFL. Other "top talent" that played in the USFL includes Reggie White, Jim Kelley, Steve Young, and Herschel Walker. Bottom line, the NFL in Montana's prime years was MUCH more diluted than it is today.

 

[cstu]

Joe Montana played in the greatest era of football, basically coinciding with his career. Talent wasn't diluted by expansion, there were varied offenses and defenses, and in Montana's era, he had to contend with teams like the mid 80's bears and Giants, who if not all for the presence of each other, would have likely lead any of these teams being a dynasty based on titles. Put it this way, if Brady had to deal with them, he doesn't sniff those titles. The only really great team Brady beat was that Ram team and they had to cheat to do so.

Were you even around in the 80's? Montana was closer to NFL expansion (Seattle and Tampa Bay) than Brady. And don't forget the USFL, which took a LOT of premium talent out of the NFL for much of the decade.

Brady is playing in a 32 team NFL, Montana played in a 28 team NFL. The USFL kept "top talent" out of the league for 2 years, not "much of the decade"

Well, now I know for sure you weren't around in the 80's. The USFL had 3 complete seasons before calling it quits right before the 4th. And yes, they had a lot of "top talent". Three straight Heisman trophy winners went directly from college to the USFL. Other "top talent" that played in the USFL includes Reggie White, Jim Kelley, Steve Young, and Herschel Walker. Bottom line, the NFL in Montana's prime years was MUCH more diluted than it is today.

I have a hard time believing that rookies going to horrible teams would really have affected the 49ers dominance.

 

[GoFishTN]

Joe Montana played in the greatest era of football, basically coinciding with his career. Talent wasn't diluted by expansion, there were varied offenses and defenses, and in Montana's era, he had to contend with teams like the mid 80's bears and Giants, who if not all for the presence of each other, would have likely lead any of these teams being a dynasty based on titles. Put it this way, if Brady had to deal with them, he doesn't sniff those titles. The only really great team Brady beat was that Ram team and they had to cheat to do so.

Were you even around in the 80's? Montana was closer to NFL expansion (Seattle and Tampa Bay) than Brady. And don't forget the USFL, which took a LOT of premium talent out of the NFL for much of the decade.

Brady is playing in a 32 team NFL, Montana played in a 28 team NFL. The USFL kept "top talent" out of the league for 2 years, not "much of the decade"

Well, now I know for sure you weren't around in the 80's. The USFL had 3 complete seasons before calling it quits right before the 4th. And yes, they had a lot of "top talent". Three straight Heisman trophy winners went directly from college to the USFL. Other "top talent" that played in the USFL includes Reggie White, Jim Kelley, Steve Young, and Herschel Walker. Bottom line, the NFL in Montana's prime years was MUCH more diluted than it is today.

Most of the USFL's top talent left after 84 as they tried to cut salaries and save money. Of the ones you mentioned, only Kelly and Walker were still around in 85.Edit: Sorry, I mixed up the 85 season and the never was 86 season. You are correct.

 

[Tau837]

I like Graham as much as the xext guy, but I'm guessing it is much easier to win a title in a league with 9 or 12 teams than it is to win one in a league with 32 teams.As for Bradshaw, does anything else besides SB titles matter at QB? Other than rings, I doubt many would put him in the top tier of QBs.

Also note there was no free agency in Graham's day. Apples and oranges.

 

[gethugefast1]

HE WON'T WIN.

 

[The Westin]

I can't stand these arguments.

People put too much stock in winning Super Bowls when measuring greatness.

I remember a thread last year right before the Super Bowl similar to this thread. It was titled "If Big Ben wins the Super Bowl is he better than Brady"

It was a long thread, and there were plenty of people on both side of the fence (I was on the side of ... hell no)

Football is such a team game, and there is too much that goes into it to just say Brady is the GOAT because he won another Super Bowl.

In his own words, he sucked in the AFC Championship Game. So if his team doesn't pick up the slack, then this conversation isn't even happening.

Whether Brady is the GOAT or not does not depend on this years Super Bowl.

 

[Short Corner]

Montana never lost a Superbowl.

Neither did Jim Plunkett.Is that the deciding factor for GOAT?

When you go to four of them, yes.Oh, and Montana was never an accomplice to a spygate.

Montana had 4 playoffs where he went 1 and done (0-1)Montana had 2 playoffs where he went 1-1Montana had 1 playoff where he went 2-1 (lost in conference championship)Brady only has 2 playoffs where he went 1 and done (0-1)Brady has only 1 playoff where he went 1-1Brady has 2 playoffs where he went 2-1 (conference championship and Super Bowl)So it's not as if Montana never lost in the playoffs. In fact, I'd say he choked far more than Brady overall. You can thank Tyree for it even being close!

This.Bumpkins overrate Joe Cool on the mistaken belief that there's only one game per year. If Montana were a better QB, he'd have some SB losses.

Tough to hang the conference championship losses on Montana. The were leading 13-9 when Marshall knocked him out in the 3rd quarter, after which the team didn't score again. They had the Redskins reeling, coming back from down 21 at the half before a phantom PI saved Washington.

 

[MarshallRob]

Why don't all these arguments apply to Belichick being the greatest coach of all time?

They do. I think there is a solid argument for BB being the best coach of all time.1. He's reached more Super Bowls than any coach. He has won 3, and maybe will have 4 in a couple weeks.

Shula reached 6. Landry 5. Of course Belichick would have as many Super Bowl wins as those two men combined if the Pats win next week.

 

[BaBastage]

So it's not as if Montana never lost in the playoffs. In fact, I'd say he choked far more than Brady overall. You can thank Tyree for it even being close!

I'm not going to weigh in on the GOAT poll. Comparing players from different era's will always come back to subjectivity.However, I will point out a flaw in your argument... as far as who to thank, I'll raise your Tyree with a tuck rule and two Vinatieri's.

 

[Borat]

Yes, but Brady is already the best there's ever been, so the point is moot.

 

[bostonfred]

So it's not as if Montana never lost in the playoffs. In fact, I'd say he choked far more than Brady overall. You can thank Tyree for it even being close!

I'm not going to weigh in on the GOAT poll. Comparing players from different era's will always come back to subjectivity.However, I will point out a flaw in your argument... as far as who to thank, I'll raise your Tyree with a tuck rule and two Vinatieri's.

Don't get me wrong, because vinatieri will never pay for a drink in new england again after his fantastic run, but the only championship that vinatieri really did anything extrordinary in was 2001, and mostly in that snow bowl game. If brady had "only" made it to the afccg that year, and led the league in tds in 2002, and beaten both co-mvps in 2003 before throwing for 350/3 in a superbowl shootout where his defense and especially secondary got destroyed midgame, and then gone on to win another in 2004, helping deion branch set a superbowl record for receptions, then gone to another in 2007, while setting the td record, then gone on to an mvp season in 2010 setting the interception record, then gone on to another superbowl in 2011 breaaking marinos 30 year old yardage record, we would probably still be talking about brady fairly favorably.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Its gotten to the point where there aren't many qbs left who you can make an argument for. For example, you can make an argument that marino was better than montana. Its been done plenty of times over the years. But brady broke marinos records, and has the postseason success. Most of the arguments for someone other than brady will have to do with career totals or specific achievements that only fit one or two other players in the league. That's usually a clear indicator, imo.

Marino's records are much more impressive than Brady's. The rules are much friendlier to QBs and WRs now then they were during Marino's time.

We've gone over this. The rules aren't significantly different from Marino's time. The major rule change happened right before Marino came in and is a big reason he was able to do what he did.

Oh BS. IIRC, Marino, Montana and Elway were all allowed to be crushed, even way after they threw the ball. In Brady's era, you get a flag for touching his skirt. Imagine how many records Marino and Montana would own if they were allowed to stand in the pocket flat footed for 5 minutes at a time. Oh, and when they got hit, they didn't scream and throw a fit, nor did they get completely taken out of their game like Brady when he's mildly touched.

 

[Mello]

I hate to say it, but if Brady with this SB and then has 3-4 more even average years, then yes, he would have a very strong case for being the GOAT. While the rules changes have helped QBs, Brady has had less help around him in other skill positions and on defense than anyone else that could claim they were the best.

 

[Modog814]

I hate to say it, but if Brady with this SB and then has 3-4 more even average years, then yes, he would have a very strong case for being the GOAT. While the rules changes have helped QBs, Brady has had less help around him in other skill positions and on defense than anyone else that could claim they were the best.

His 3 superbowls are as much a result of defense as they were of offense, if not more. Since they've really become this offensive juggernaut, they haven't really accomplished much more than say Peyton Manning's colts. Terrific regular seasons, but choke in the playoffs.

 

[ivnabru]

I hate to say it, but if Brady with this SB and then has 3-4 more even average years, then yes, he would have a very strong case for being the GOAT. While the rules changes have helped QBs, Brady has had less help around him in other skill positions and on defense than anyone else that could claim they were the best.

His 3 superbowls are as much a result of defense as they were of offense, if not more. Since they've really become this offensive juggernaut, they haven't really accomplished much more than say Peyton Manning's colts. Terrific regular seasons, but choke in the playoffs.

2 Superbowl appearances in the last 4 years that Brady has started. Which have been the years they've had offensive talent around Brady (other than OL). If they win in 2 weeks then we're talking as successful as any team in the NFL since they've been an offensive team in the playoffs or otherwise. If they lose they're still the 4th most successful team in the playoffs behind the ones that have won Superbowls.

 

[AmosMoses]

I hate to say it, but if Brady with this SB and then has 3-4 more even average years, then yes, he would have a very strong case for being the GOAT. While the rules changes have helped QBs, Brady has had less help around him in other skill positions and on defense than anyone else that could claim they were the best.

His 3 superbowls are as much a result of defense as they were of offense, if not more. Since they've really become this offensive juggernaut, they haven't really accomplished much more than say Peyton Manning's colts. Terrific regular seasons, but choke in the playoffs.

2 Superbowl appearances in the last 4 years that Brady has started. Which have been the years they've had offensive talent around Brady (other than OL). If they win in 2 weeks then we're talking as successful as any team in the NFL since they've been an offensive team in the playoffs or otherwise. If they lose they're still the 4th most successful team in the playoffs behind the ones that have won Superbowls.

untrue - just talking about 2 supes in the past 4 years, it's 2 in the past 5. The rest of your post I have NFI what you are saying. Your English is quite challenging.

 

[ivnabru]

I hate to say it, but if Brady with this SB and then has 3-4 more even average years, then yes, he would have a very strong case for being the GOAT. While the rules changes have helped QBs, Brady has had less help around him in other skill positions and on defense than anyone else that could claim they were the best.

His 3 superbowls are as much a result of defense as they were of offense, if not more. Since they've really become this offensive juggernaut, they haven't really accomplished much more than say Peyton Manning's colts. Terrific regular seasons, but choke in the playoffs.

2 Superbowl appearances in the last 4 years that Brady has started. Which have been the years they've had offensive talent around Brady (other than OL). If they win in 2 weeks then we're talking as successful as any team in the NFL since they've been an offensive team in the playoffs or otherwise. If they lose they're still the 4th most successful team in the playoffs behind the ones that have won Superbowls.

untrue

Why? Assuming they won they'd be tied for 1st in Superbowl wins, Superbowl appearances and have the best regular season record.Assuming they lose there would be 3 teams (in the 4 years that Brady has had offensive talent and the team has been the record setting offense) with Superbowls, they'd be tied for 1st with Superbowl appearances and 1st in regular season wins.

You may dislike them but facts are facts.

 

[AmosMoses]

I hate to say it, but if Brady with this SB and then has 3-4 more even average years, then yes, he would have a very strong case for being the GOAT. While the rules changes have helped QBs, Brady has had less help around him in other skill positions and on defense than anyone else that could claim they were the best.

His 3 superbowls are as much a result of defense as they were of offense, if not more. Since they've really become this offensive juggernaut, they haven't really accomplished much more than say Peyton Manning's colts. Terrific regular seasons, but choke in the playoffs.

2 Superbowl appearances in the last 4 years that Brady has started. Which have been the years they've had offensive talent around Brady (other than OL). If they win in 2 weeks then we're talking as successful as any team in the NFL since they've been an offensive team in the playoffs or otherwise. If they lose they're still the 4th most successful team in the playoffs behind the ones that have won Superbowls.

untrue

Why? Assuming they won they'd be tied for 1st in Superbowl wins, Superbowl appearances and have the best regular season record.Assuming they lose there would be 3 teams (in the 4 years that Brady has had offensive talent and the team has been the record setting offense) with Superbowls, they'd be tied for 1st with Superbowl appearances and 1st in regular season wins.

You may dislike them but facts are facts.

2 super bowls in the past 4 years? That's the only thing I'm disagreeing with you here dude. Which other team did Tom Brady play for?

 

[KarmaPolice]

I realize that it is fun to debate stuff like this, but it is impossible. I think it is good enough just to say that he is one of the best Qbs we have ever seen and leave it at that. He has had less offensive talent than any other QB that you would think about listing and still has gotten to the SB 50% of the time. On the flip side, the rules are tilted towards the O side of the ball much more than 20 years ago too.

 

[Modog814]

I hate to say it, but if Brady with this SB and then has 3-4 more even average years, then yes, he would have a very strong case for being the GOAT. While the rules changes have helped QBs, Brady has had less help around him in other skill positions and on defense than anyone else that could claim they were the best.

His 3 superbowls are as much a result of defense as they were of offense, if not more. Since they've really become this offensive juggernaut, they haven't really accomplished much more than say Peyton Manning's colts. Terrific regular seasons, but choke in the playoffs.

2 Superbowl appearances in the last 4 years that Brady has started. Which have been the years they've had offensive talent around Brady (other than OL). If they win in 2 weeks then we're talking as successful as any team in the NFL since they've been an offensive team in the playoffs or otherwise. If they lose they're still the 4th most successful team in the playoffs behind the ones that have won Superbowls.

untrue

Why? Assuming they won they'd be tied for 1st in Superbowl wins, Superbowl appearances and have the best regular season record.Assuming they lose there would be 3 teams (in the 4 years that Brady has had offensive talent and the team has been the record setting offense) with Superbowls, they'd be tied for 1st with Superbowl appearances and 1st in regular season wins.

You may dislike them but facts are facts.

I'm not really sure what you're point is...I mean, so if they win in 2 weeks, they'll be as successful (since becoming an "offensive" team) as the Colts/Packers/Saints/Steelers/Giants over the same span... is that what you're trying to say?

If that's the case, it's like I said, they haven't really accomplished much since they've become an offensive oriented team. If you want me to add "...yet" to my statement, fine, I'll add it.

Personally I don't really give a crap who people think is GOAT. But I hear arguments for Brady that include he had less supporting cast around him, and that he has 3 superbowls. If you look at the facts though, he won the 3 superbowls when they were more of a defensive team than an offensive team, and he hasn't accomplished (no rings) anything since they've become an offensive team. Sure that can change in next sunday.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Joe Montana played in the greatest era of football, basically coinciding with his career. Talent wasn't diluted by expansion, there were varied offenses and defenses, and in Montana's era, he had to contend with teams like the mid 80's bears and Giants, who if not all for the presence of each other, would have likely lead any of these teams being a dynasty based on titles. Put it this way, if Brady had to deal with them, he doesn't sniff those titles. The only really great team Brady beat was that Ram team and they had to cheat to do so.

Were you even around in the 80's? Montana was closer to NFL expansion (Seattle and Tampa Bay) than Brady. And don't forget the USFL, which took a LOT of premium talent out of the NFL for much of the decade.

Brady is playing in a 32 team NFL, Montana played in a 28 team NFL. The USFL kept "top talent" out of the league for 2 years, not "much of the decade"

Well, now I know for sure you weren't around in the 80's. The USFL had 3 complete seasons before calling it quits right before the 4th. And yes, they had a lot of "top talent". Three straight Heisman trophy winners went directly from college to the USFL. Other "top talent" that played in the USFL includes Reggie White, Jim Kelley, Steve Young, and Herschel Walker. Bottom line, the NFL in Montana's prime years was MUCH more diluted than it is today.

Oh please enough with this. Your "much of decade" was blown out of the water, and these college guys aren't exactly dominant contributors out of the gate, particularly in that era of football. Herschel and Reggie were impact players out of the gate, but that era NFL broke quarterbacks in gradually. So unless we are putting Sean Landetta and his ilk with a "top talent" label, we are talking a handful of guys who missed two seasons versus having 4 extra teams of guys in the league now?

 

[David Yudkin]

Brady is playing in a 32 team NFL, Montana played in a 28 team NFL. The USFL kept "top talent" out of the league for 2 years, not "much of the decade"

Well, now I know for sure you weren't around in the 80's. The USFL had 3 complete seasons before calling it quits right before the 4th. And yes, they had a lot of "top talent". Three straight Heisman trophy winners went directly from college to the USFL. Other "top talent" that played in the USFL includes Reggie White, Jim Kelley, Steve Young, and Herschel Walker. Bottom line, the NFL in Montana's prime years was MUCH more diluted than it is today.

I'm not sure where folks were going with this. Montana and the Niners won one SB during the 3 year run of the USFL. While Montana's numbers were slighty better than the years prior to that stretch, it's not like we went from 2,000 passing yards to 4,000 passing yards in those years.

 

[ivnabru]

I hate to say it, but if Brady with this SB and then has 3-4 more even average years, then yes, he would have a very strong case for being the GOAT. While the rules changes have helped QBs, Brady has had less help around him in other skill positions and on defense than anyone else that could claim they were the best.

His 3 superbowls are as much a result of defense as they were of offense, if not more. Since they've really become this offensive juggernaut, they haven't really accomplished much more than say Peyton Manning's colts. Terrific regular seasons, but choke in the playoffs.

2 Superbowl appearances in the last 4 years that Brady has started. Which have been the years they've had offensive talent around Brady (other than OL). If they win in 2 weeks then we're talking as successful as any team in the NFL since they've been an offensive team in the playoffs or otherwise. If they lose they're still the 4th most successful team in the playoffs behind the ones that have won Superbowls.

untrue

Why? Assuming they won they'd be tied for 1st in Superbowl wins, Superbowl appearances and have the best regular season record.Assuming they lose there would be 3 teams (in the 4 years that Brady has had offensive talent and the team has been the record setting offense) with Superbowls, they'd be tied for 1st with Superbowl appearances and 1st in regular season wins.

You may dislike them but facts are facts.

2 super bowls in the past 4 years? That's the only thing I'm disagreeing with you here dude. Which other team did Tom Brady play for?

I said last 4 years Brady has played, sure he played in 08 but he only played the 1st half of 1 game. I think we can agree that with Brady in '08 the Patriots most likely would have made the playoffs. Might have been a first round loss. But it's kind of unfair to measure Brady's success when he didn't play.

 

[ivnabru]

I hate to say it, but if Brady with this SB and then has 3-4 more even average years, then yes, he would have a very strong case for being the GOAT. While the rules changes have helped QBs, Brady has had less help around him in other skill positions and on defense than anyone else that could claim they were the best.

His 3 superbowls are as much a result of defense as they were of offense, if not more. Since they've really become this offensive juggernaut, they haven't really accomplished much more than say Peyton Manning's colts. Terrific regular seasons, but choke in the playoffs.

2 Superbowl appearances in the last 4 years that Brady has started. Which have been the years they've had offensive talent around Brady (other than OL). If they win in 2 weeks then we're talking as successful as any team in the NFL since they've been an offensive team in the playoffs or otherwise. If they lose they're still the 4th most successful team in the playoffs behind the ones that have won Superbowls.

untrue

Why? Assuming they won they'd be tied for 1st in Superbowl wins, Superbowl appearances and have the best regular season record.Assuming they lose there would be 3 teams (in the 4 years that Brady has had offensive talent and the team has been the record setting offense) with Superbowls, they'd be tied for 1st with Superbowl appearances and 1st in regular season wins.

You may dislike them but facts are facts.

I'm not really sure what you're point is...I mean, so if they win in 2 weeks, they'll be as successful (since becoming an "offensive" team) as the Colts/Packers/Saints/Steelers/Giants over the same span... is that what you're trying to say?

If that's the case, it's like I said, they haven't really accomplished much since they've become an offensive oriented team. If you want me to add "...yet" to my statement, fine, I'll add it.

Personally I don't really give a crap who people think is GOAT. But I hear arguments for Brady that include he had less supporting cast around him, and that he has 3 superbowls. If you look at the facts though, he won the 3 superbowls when they were more of a defensive team than an offensive team, and he hasn't accomplished (no rings) anything since they've become an offensive team. Sure that can change in next sunday.

They've won the AFC 50% of the years that Brady has played and been part of a juggernaut offense with weapons. That's accomplishing something. Yes they haven't won a Superbowl (0-3 so far) but only 3 teams have won a Superbowl in those 3 seasons.

 

[David Yudkin]

What I find funny here is that overall, people still say Brady didn't do much to win 3 titles (almost holding the fact that the Pats won against him) . . . yet in other threads the fact that Roethlisberger got to 3 SBs and and won 2 of them in similar fashion is not that big a knock on Big Ben.

Not to diminish what Roethlisberger has done, but Brady went on to have 2 MVP seasons and posted big offensive numbers again this year (to go along with the best regular season record in the AFC 3 of his 4 past 4 seasons). So now the knock is he didn't do all of those in the same season (big numbers, best record, and a SB win).

Other threads have hinted that Eli is also in the mix as one of the elite QBs, and some callers on sports radio have tried to say he could actually be better than Brady with a win next week. I don't know what makes a great QB or not, but the Giants had more regular season losses in their two recent trips to the Super Bowl (13) than the Pats had in Brady's 5 trips to the Super Bowl (12).

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, at what point will people start giving Brady some credit? First it was the defense, then Spygate, then the coaching, then the OL, then the talent of the other skill players, then a weak schedule, etc.

I STILL have never figured out the fixation on people to try to pin a team's success almost pass/fail on the QB. There are a lot of elements to winning a SB (the talent of everyone on the team, health, coaching, drafting, personnel management, game planning, etc.). The bottom line is Brady has put his team in position to win a lot of football games and has advanced to the final game more than any other QB currently in the league. That doesn't make him the GOAT . . . but that certainly should be a feather in his cap in the debate.

 

[General Tso]

Joe Montana played in the greatest era of football, basically coinciding with his career. Talent wasn't diluted by expansion, there were varied offenses and defenses, and in Montana's era, he had to contend with teams like the mid 80's bears and Giants, who if not all for the presence of each other, would have likely lead any of these teams being a dynasty based on titles. Put it this way, if Brady had to deal with them, he doesn't sniff those titles. The only really great team Brady beat was that Ram team and they had to cheat to do so.

Were you even around in the 80's? Montana was closer to NFL expansion (Seattle and Tampa Bay) than Brady. And don't forget the USFL, which took a LOT of premium talent out of the NFL for much of the decade.

Brady is playing in a 32 team NFL, Montana played in a 28 team NFL. The USFL kept "top talent" out of the league for 2 years, not "much of the decade"

Well, now I know for sure you weren't around in the 80's. The USFL had 3 complete seasons before calling it quits right before the 4th. And yes, they had a lot of "top talent". Three straight Heisman trophy winners went directly from college to the USFL. Other "top talent" that played in the USFL includes Reggie White, Jim Kelley, Steve Young, and Herschel Walker. Bottom line, the NFL in Montana's prime years was MUCH more diluted than it is today.

Oh please enough with this. Your "much of decade" was blown out of the water, and these college guys aren't exactly dominant contributors out of the gate, particularly in that era of football. Herschel and Reggie were impact players out of the gate, but that era NFL broke quarterbacks in gradually. So unless we are putting Sean Landetta and his ilk with a "top talent" label, we are talking a handful of guys who missed two seasons versus having 4 extra teams of guys in the league now?

OK, so you are holding onto your belief that Tom Brady plays in a weaker NFL because it has 4 more teams and the talent has been "diluted by expansion". So the 1999 expansion Browns and the 2002 expansion Texans have watered down the NFL moreso than the USFL did? A league that operated for 3 years (not 2 as you keep saying) and had such notable top talent as Jim Kelley, Steve Young, Reggie White, Marcus Dupree, Doug Flutie, Mike Rozier, Bobby Hebert... These weren't two bit role players. Heck, 9 out of the top 10 USFL QB's in 1984 went on to be starting quarterbacks in the NFL.Bottom line, it was Joe Montana that played in the watered down era, not Brady. How can you say otherwise when 3 of the best QB's in Montana's era - Steve Young, Jim Kelley, and even Warren Moon in the CFL - didn't even compete against Montana for a good chunk of the period when he dominated? Is it coincidence that Montana's best 3 year run stat-wise occurred during the exact same 3 year period when the USFL operated?Joe Montana may be the GOAT, but it's not because he played in a more competitive NFL.

 

[bostonfred]

Tom Brady

2001:Superbowl MVP (troy brown sets franchise record with 101 receptions)

2002: led NFL in TD passes (two receivers with more than 3 td receptions are fauria with 7 and patten with 5)

2003: Superbowl MVP (leading receiver is Branch with 803 yards)

2004: Superbowl champ (Deion Branch sets receptions record as Superbowl MVP)

2005: extends playoff record to 10-0, throws for 4120 yards and 28 TDs with no receiver getting 1000 yards or more than 5tds.

2006: afc championship game (leading receiver is reche caldwell with 760 yards)

2007: league mvp, 18-0, superbowl, all time greatest offense, sets td record with 50 tds and only 8 ints (leading receiver randy moss)

2008: misses season, pats lose 5 more games, cassel throws for 1300 fewer yards, and miss playoffs for first time since 2002)

2009: returns to playoffs, throws for 900 more yards than cassel. (Leading receiver is wes welker)

2010: league mvp in first fully healthy season post injury, 36 tds/4 ints and sets interception record (leading receiver wes welker)

2011: returns to superbowl (outcome tbd), breaks marinos yardage record, helps rob gronkowski set all time te records for yards and tds.

Greatest of all time.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Tom Brady2001:Superbowl MVP (troy brown sets franchise record with 101 receptions)2002: led NFL in TD passes (two receivers with more than 3 td receptions are fauria with 7 and patten with 5)2003: Superbowl MVP (leading receiver is Branch with 803 yards)2004: Superbowl champ (Deion Branch sets receptions record as Superbowl MVP)2005: extends playoff record to 10-0, throws for 4120 yards and 28 TDs with no receiver getting 1000 yards or more than 5tds.2006: afc championship game (leading receiver is reche caldwell with 760 yards)2007: league mvp, 18-0, superbowl, all time greatest offense, sets td record with 50 tds and only 8 ints (leading receiver randy moss) 2008: misses season, pats lose 5 more games, cassel throws for 1300 fewer yards, and miss playoffs for first time since 2002)2009: returns to playoffs, throws for 900 more yards than cassel. (Leading receiver is wes welker)2010: league mvp in first fully healthy season post injury, 36 tds/4 ints and sets interception record (leading receiver wes welker)2011: returns to superbowl (outcome tbd), breaks marinos yardage record, helps rob gronkowski set all time te records for yards and tds.Greatest of all time.

I can't help but notice that you choose postseason honors/accomplishments when it is convenient for your cause and regular season honors/statistics when it is not.I kind of tend to agree with your conclusion, but if you're trying to argue about a player's greatness wouldn't you want to consider all of the information?

 

[bostonfred]

Its not just how great his individual or team accomplishments have been, its that he has done it with so many different receivers, and has helped so many of them not only have their career bests, but set franchise and nfl records while doing it.

 

[BaBastage]

Don't get me wrong, because vinatieri will never pay for a drink in new england again after his fantastic run, but the only championship that vinatieri really did anything extrordinary in was 2001, and mostly in that snow bowl game. If brady had "only" made it to the afccg that year, and led the league in tds in 2002, and beaten both co-mvps in 2003 before throwing for 350/3 in a superbowl shootout where his defense and especially secondary got destroyed midgame, and then gone on to win another in 2004, helping deion branch set a superbowl record for receptions, then gone to another in 2007, while setting the td record, then gone on to an mvp season in 2010 setting the interception record, then gone on to another superbowl in 2011 breaaking marinos 30 year old yardage record, we would probably still be talking about brady fairly favorably.

Hi Boston - quite frankly I agree with you - I'd say Brady deserves the lion' s share of credit for the patriot's success. I was only bringing light that if anyone is going to point to a single play that may have affected a games' outcome (gianmarco's reference to the Tyree catch), that same logic could be used to detract from Brady as well. (One can't say that without Tyree's catch that NE would have won the game. You could just as easily said that without Burress' catch, NE wins the game. Or without one of NE's touchdown plays, Giants win the game... ad nauseum.)

 

[bostonfred]

Tom Brady2001:Superbowl MVP (troy brown sets franchise record with 101 receptions)2002: led NFL in TD passes (two receivers with more than 3 td receptions are fauria with 7 and patten with 5)2003: Superbowl MVP (leading receiver is Branch with 803 yards)2004: Superbowl champ (Deion Branch sets receptions record as Superbowl MVP)2005: extends playoff record to 10-0, throws for 4120 yards and 28 TDs with no receiver getting 1000 yards or more than 5tds.2006: afc championship game (leading receiver is reche caldwell with 760 yards)2007: league mvp, 18-0, superbowl, all time greatest offense, sets td record with 50 tds and only 8 ints (leading receiver randy moss) 2008: misses season, pats lose 5 more games, cassel throws for 1300 fewer yards, and miss playoffs for first time since 2002)2009: returns to playoffs, throws for 900 more yards than cassel. (Leading receiver is wes welker)2010: league mvp in first fully healthy season post injury, 36 tds/4 ints and sets interception record (leading receiver wes welker)2011: returns to superbowl (outcome tbd), breaks marinos yardage record, helps rob gronkowski set all time te records for yards and tds.Greatest of all time.

I can't help but notice that you choose postseason honors/accomplishments when it is convenient for your cause and regular season honors/statistics when it is not.I kind of tend to agree with your conclusion, but if you're trying to argue about a player's greatness wouldn't you want to consider all of the information?

I wasn't hiding that whatsoever. Im showing that brady wasn't just great one year, he was great every year. Sure, if you only care about yardage, you'll be more interested in the year he broke marinos record than the year he led the pats to their third superbowl in four years with "only" 4100 yards. If you only care about tds, 2002 and 2007 are your years. If you only care about league awards, his mvp seasons in 2007 and 2010, and superbowl mvps in 2001 and 2003 will be most impressive. But he has been great since day one and never really let up. It is truly incredible.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Its not just how great his individual or team accomplishments have been, its that he has done it with so many different receivers, and has helped so many of them not only have their career bests, but set franchise and nfl records while doing it.

This is true of every quarterback that I would include on the short list of the greatest of all time.(FWIW I would go Elway, Marino, Manning, Brady as the Top 4 and clearly above everyone else, not really sure how to evaluate the guys that played before the 80s).

 

[TobiasFunke]

Tom Brady2001:Superbowl MVP (troy brown sets franchise record with 101 receptions)2002: led NFL in TD passes (two receivers with more than 3 td receptions are fauria with 7 and patten with 5)2003: Superbowl MVP (leading receiver is Branch with 803 yards)2004: Superbowl champ (Deion Branch sets receptions record as Superbowl MVP)2005: extends playoff record to 10-0, throws for 4120 yards and 28 TDs with no receiver getting 1000 yards or more than 5tds.2006: afc championship game (leading receiver is reche caldwell with 760 yards)2007: league mvp, 18-0, superbowl, all time greatest offense, sets td record with 50 tds and only 8 ints (leading receiver randy moss) 2008: misses season, pats lose 5 more games, cassel throws for 1300 fewer yards, and miss playoffs for first time since 2002)2009: returns to playoffs, throws for 900 more yards than cassel. (Leading receiver is wes welker)2010: league mvp in first fully healthy season post injury, 36 tds/4 ints and sets interception record (leading receiver wes welker)2011: returns to superbowl (outcome tbd), breaks marinos yardage record, helps rob gronkowski set all time te records for yards and tds.Greatest of all time.

I can't help but notice that you choose postseason honors/accomplishments when it is convenient for your cause and regular season honors/statistics when it is not.I kind of tend to agree with your conclusion, but if you're trying to argue about a player's greatness wouldn't you want to consider all of the information?

I wasn't hiding that whatsoever. Im showing that brady wasn't just great one year, he was great every year. Sure, if you only care about yardage, you'll be more interested in the year he broke marinos record than the year he led the pats to their third superbowl in four years with "only" 4100 yards. If you only care about tds, 2002 and 2007 are your years. If you only care about league awards, his mvp seasons in 2007 and 2010, and superbowl mvps in 2001 and 2003 will be most impressive. But he has been great since day one and never really let up. It is truly incredible.

That's simply not true. For the six seasons that constitute 60% of his playing career to date, he appears in the Top 6 in passer rating in the NFL- i.e. approximately all-pro level- only twice, and never higher than fourth. For those six years, he was basically Terry Bradshaw.In my book, six years of being Terry Bradshaw at his best and four years of being Dan Marino at his best is enough to give you a decent case for being the greatest QB of all time. Which is why I find it so strange that you feel the need to embellish.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Don't mind bostonfred. He'd drink Tom Brady's bathwater if Gisele would let him.