dparker713
Footballguy
There is a severe difference between giving him credit and making the claim he's the best of all time.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
If the Patriots win the Super Bowl, is Brady the greatest QB of all ti (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gianmarco
- Start date
Warrior
Footballguy
Talk about cherry-picking. Brady's best season of his career vs. Cassel's season? How about his average season, or the season after he came back and took over the team.Cassel had 11 wins in 2008.
Brady had 10 wins in 2009.
Do you seriously want to use team record to compare Tom Brady (who you say is the greatest of all time) and a guy who has shown that he's mediocre at best, who led the team to more wins?
Wes Welker, the team's leading receiver, caught 1 less pass for 10 less yards under Matt freakin' Cassel than he did under Tom Brady in the subsequent season.
Brady shouldn't be punished for being on a team that was micro-managed by one of the best coaches ever and stacked with loads of depth and talent. But when he goes down for the season and the team barely misses a beat, it seriously makes me question how he can even be in the discussion of greatest of all time. I'd love to see what would happen to Brady if he had been traded to KC rather than Cassel. Probably a slightly better but overall very similar result for the Chiefs.
He's great. Absolutely. GOAT? Not the best QB playing this season and not the best QB over the past 10 years.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
It's amazing that some Brady/Patriots fans do not understand the difference.
parrot
Footballguy
Losing five more games, putting up 179 fewer points, 700 total fewer yards, 1200 fewer passing yards, 29 fewer TD passes, and 2 more interceptions = team barely missing a beat.
Cassel had 11 wins in 2008.
Brady had 10 wins in 2009.
Do you seriously want to use team record to compare Tom Brady (who you say is the greatest of all time) and a guy who has shown that he's mediocre at best, who led the team to more wins?
Wes Welker, the team's leading receiver, caught 1 less pass for 10 less yards under Matt freakin' Cassel than he did under Tom Brady in the subsequent season.
Brady shouldn't be punished for being on a team that was micro-managed by one of the best coaches ever and stacked with loads of depth and talent. But when he goes down for the season and the team barely misses a beat, it seriously makes me question how he can even be in the discussion of greatest of all time. I'd love to see what would happen to Brady if he had been traded to KC rather than Cassel. Probably a slightly better but overall very similar result for the Chiefs.
He's great. Absolutely. GOAT? Not the best QB playing this season and not the best QB over the past 10 years.
Last edited by a moderator:
GoFishTN
Footballguy
Cassel's one season at QB compares very well to every Brady season before 2007.Edit: Which is Brady and which is Cassel?Losing five more games, putting up 179 fewer points, 700 total fewer yards, 1200 fewer passing yards, 29 fewer TD passes, and 2 more interceptions = team barely missing a beat.
Code:
Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD Int264 413 63.9 2843 18 12373 601 62.1 3764 28 14327 516 63.4 3693 21 11317 527 60.2 3620 23 12288 474 60.8 3692 28 14334 530 63.0 4110 26 14319 516 61.8 3529 24 12
Last edited by a moderator:
Road Warriors
Footballguy
--Snip of the list of accomplishments--
You complain about cherry-picking, but want to compare Cassel's 2008 with Brady's return from major knee injury, as opposed to his 2007 run when he was fully healthy, with essentially the same cast. Or how about an average of 2010-2011, when he's been fully recovered from the surgery.Cassel has proven to be a middle of the pack NFL QB, placed on a historic offensive unit. With exceptional line play and pro bowl WRs, he won 11 games and led the team to a top-10 ranking in points and yards. I would contend that there are 10-15 QBs ( below the obvious top tier guys ) that would have had similar success to Cassel in 2008 with that team. Brady's results with the same cast in 2007 was ~ 25% more productive.What is more likely, in your mind...Brady 2007, 2010, 2011 are a more representative sample of Brady's play, and his 2009 may have been a "down" year recovering from major injury?or Brady 2009 is more representative of Brady's play, and the outlying surrounding years are exceptions?
Getting to the superbowl isn't accomplishing anything if the argument is that Brady is better than XXXX because of the superbowl rings. Rodgers, Brees and Eli (add Big Ben too) have all accomplished more since the Pats have been that offensive Juggernaut. To make an argument that Brady is GOAT because he has 3 rings and all these stats with less supporting cast is just plain misleading. Was he a valuable part of those 3 rings, of course, what QB isn't valuable in a superbowl run? The truth is he won those rings when he had a damn good defense helping him out, and he hasn't won one since the defense has slid into mediocrity.
100% agree with the bolded. I'm not exactly sure why Superbowls, a total team accomplishment, is used as a measuring stick for an individual. Is Peyton Manning really any less of a talented QB because he only won 1? Would beating the Saints have really made a difference? Is Trent Dilfer really any better of a QB because he has one?
If Brady wins next week does that make him better than he was the day before? If he loses, does that make him worse?
Also, totaly agree with your statement about Big Ben. Without that defense, he has 0. End of story.
parrot
Footballguy
The Pats offense and Brady's numbers made a quantum leap when Welker and Moss came on board. Brady came back from major surgery and a year out of the game and immediately surpassed Cassel's numbers by a substantial amount, throwing for 700 more yards, 7 more TDs, and more than a half a yard more per attempt. And he has continued to do so every year since. I'm not going to chart out every season since 2007, but trust me, it's easy to pick out Cassel's, it's the one with the lowest yardage, the lowest completion percentage, the worst YPA (by a minimum of half a yard), and the fewest TDs (by a minimum of 7, or 33% of his total).Cassel played well for the position he was put in, but he was not Brady's equal in that offense by any stretch of the imagination. He was also the beneficiary of one of the easier schedules in recent history.Cassel's one season at QB compares very well to every Brady season before 2007.Edit: Which is Brady and which is Cassel?Losing five more games, putting up 179 fewer points, 700 total fewer yards, 1200 fewer passing yards, 29 fewer TD passes, and 2 more interceptions = team barely missing a beat.Code:Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD Int264 413 63.9 2843 18 12373 601 62.1 3764 28 14327 516 63.4 3693 21 11317 527 60.2 3620 23 12288 474 60.8 3692 28 14334 530 63.0 4110 26 14319 516 61.8 3529 24 12
Last edited by a moderator:
Smack Tripper
Footballguy
Because, you really only dig back to Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson as two outliers in 46 years of otherwise generally great QBs being the difference in winning. Can you be great and not win, or not great and win one, sure. But history shows us those titles aren't won by accident.
History shows you need either a pretty good to great QB or 11 great players on defense.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
History shows us that not great QBs win Super Bowls all the time. I'd say the majority of Super Bowl winning QBs had less than great seasons in their Super Bowl winning years.Quarterback is the most important position on the field, to be sure. But fans completely overestimate its importance.
Even if you exclude QBs who became great later (like Brady, Roethlisberger and Eli Manning just in the past decade alone), here are some other obvious outliers:
Jim Plunkett
Joe Theismann
Jim McMahon
Doug Williams
Jeff Hostetler
Mark Rypien
Trent Dilfer
Brad Johnson
And that's before we even get to the many guys who are wildly overrated because of their Super Bowl wins like Namath, Bradshaw, Stabler, Aikman, and so on.
Last edited by a moderator:
GoFishTN
Footballguy
So he's only the greatest since 2007. Got it.The Pats offense and Brady's numbers made a quantum leap when Welker and Moss came on board. Brady came back from major surgery and a year out of the game and immediately surpassed Cassel's numbers by a substantial amount, throwing for 700 more yards, 7 more TDs, and more than a half a yard more per attempt. And he has continued to do so every year since. I'm not going to chart out every season since 2007, but trust me, it's easy to pick out Cassel's, it's the one with the lowest yardage, the lowest completion percentage, the worst YPA (by a minimum of half a yard), and the fewest TDs (by 7, or 33% of his total).Cassel played well for the position he was put in, but he was not Brady's equal in that offense by any stretch of the imagination. He was also the beneficiary of one of the easier schedules in recent history.Cassel's one season at QB compares very well to every Brady season before 2007.Edit: Which is Brady and which is Cassel?Losing five more games, putting up 179 fewer points, 700 total fewer yards, 1200 fewer passing yards, 29 fewer TD passes, and 2 more interceptions = team barely missing a beat.Code:Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD Int264 413 63.9 2843 18 12373 601 62.1 3764 28 14327 516 63.4 3693 21 11317 527 60.2 3620 23 12288 474 60.8 3692 28 14334 530 63.0 4110 26 14319 516 61.8 3529 24 12
parrot
Footballguy
I never said he was the greatest, before, or after, 2007. I'm pointing out the glaring flaw in how the seasons are being interpretted. Get it?So he's only the greatest since 2007. Got it.The Pats offense and Brady's numbers made a quantum leap when Welker and Moss came on board. Brady came back from major surgery and a year out of the game and immediately surpassed Cassel's numbers by a substantial amount, throwing for 700 more yards, 7 more TDs, and more than a half a yard more per attempt. And he has continued to do so every year since. I'm not going to chart out every season since 2007, but trust me, it's easy to pick out Cassel's, it's the one with the lowest yardage, the lowest completion percentage, the worst YPA (by a minimum of half a yard), and the fewest TDs (by 7, or 33% of his total).Cassel played well for the position he was put in, but he was not Brady's equal in that offense by any stretch of the imagination. He was also the beneficiary of one of the easier schedules in recent history.Cassel's one season at QB compares very well to every Brady season before 2007.Edit: Which is Brady and which is Cassel?Losing five more games, putting up 179 fewer points, 700 total fewer yards, 1200 fewer passing yards, 29 fewer TD passes, and 2 more interceptions = team barely missing a beat.Code:Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD Int264 413 63.9 2843 18 12373 601 62.1 3764 28 14327 516 63.4 3693 21 11317 527 60.2 3620 23 12288 474 60.8 3692 28 14334 530 63.0 4110 26 14319 516 61.8 3529 24 12
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Care to address any of the many counterexamples I offered?
Very true, but I think titles are won by complete teams, not by individuals. Look at the Packers this year, last year their defense plays great complementing their Offense, this year, not so much and they're out. The year before, the same thing with the saints. The only year the colts won was the one year where people are reluctant to give credit to the offense because they feel it was the defense who made the difference. The years the Pats won they had a great defense, and the emergence of Brady gave them enough offense.You're correct, titles aren't won by accident. It's not an accident that most superbowl winners have pretty good to great QB's. But it's also not an accident that history shows us that most superbowl winning teams, were good all-around teams (at during playoff time). So it brings me back to my original point, to measure an inviduals greatness by the number or lack of super bowl appearance/wins is just not a great measuring stick. All it means, imo, is that he's a very good to great QB who happened to play of a very good/great team.
Exactly, do you need to have a good/great qb to win the superbowl? Or, through the media, do we create a "great" qb because they've won a superbowl, thus why history suggests you need a great qb to win the superbowl?I'm from NY, and I always thought Eli got a bad rap, and was better than most people thought. However, the idea that somehow he becomes "elite" if he wins this superbowl is laughable (not that he's not elite, you could debate it either way but the outcome of the game should have no impact)
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Again, getting the following out of the way, I AM NOT advocating that Brady is the GOAT.
That being said, you are not going to get get to 5 Super Bowls if you are not a great QB. You don't see guys on the outliers listed above going to multiple Super Bowls.
What I gleen from Brady's past 5 years compared to his first 5 years is that he was not required to carry the team early in his career. The Pats had one of the better defenses in the league and a decent ground game, and Brady would selectively have to be great . . . whether it was a handful of plays a game to a couple of games a year. But his greatness was not always a requirement to win SEE: Aikmen, Troy).
The last few years, NE has come to rely a lot more on Brady to win. How often have the Pats been able to rely on the defense to win in the past few years? Pretty much never. How ofter was Brady able to simply hand the ball off and let the ground game take over? Not very often. How many games has Brady been able to have an off game and the Pats still win? Once in a while, but not very often. The game against the Ravens was one of the few in recent memory where the defense and running game both stepped up and was the difference in a sub par game for Brady where the Pats were able to win.
Anyone trying to pin Brady with an inferior grade over the past few years because they didn't win a title really doesn't get it. The early 2000s Patriot teams were very well balanced and had depth at almost every position. These days, the talent level overall is less than it used to be and the depth at some positions is non-existent. (We can debate why that is or what they've done differently as an organization, but that has nothing to do with Brady.) By comparison, the Pats have been allowing a TD more a game and way more yardage than they used to. Brady has to be "on" for the team to win.
The crux of the matter is that Brady has actually done far more as a player in recent years but has much less to show for it because the team around him has not been as good as the teams they fielded 8-10 years ago. These days, if Brady is off the Pats are usually sunk in that particular game. NE is not well versed and balanced enough to win in other areas. The defense usually cannot take over a game. They won't be able to come up with the crucial turnover. The running game can't take over and pound defenses and still get pounts. They won't get a big kick return to get better field position or a score to keep them in a game. All that plays into who wins and loses . . . especially in the playoffs. That could easily be their undoing against the Giants (just like the last time they faced off in the SB). When you need Sterling Moore to save your team and you can't even name the other guys on the field defensively, your team needs Tom Brady to be Tom Brady and play his best to win. The Ravens game was clearly an exception.
That being said, you are not going to get get to 5 Super Bowls if you are not a great QB. You don't see guys on the outliers listed above going to multiple Super Bowls.
What I gleen from Brady's past 5 years compared to his first 5 years is that he was not required to carry the team early in his career. The Pats had one of the better defenses in the league and a decent ground game, and Brady would selectively have to be great . . . whether it was a handful of plays a game to a couple of games a year. But his greatness was not always a requirement to win SEE: Aikmen, Troy).
The last few years, NE has come to rely a lot more on Brady to win. How often have the Pats been able to rely on the defense to win in the past few years? Pretty much never. How ofter was Brady able to simply hand the ball off and let the ground game take over? Not very often. How many games has Brady been able to have an off game and the Pats still win? Once in a while, but not very often. The game against the Ravens was one of the few in recent memory where the defense and running game both stepped up and was the difference in a sub par game for Brady where the Pats were able to win.
Anyone trying to pin Brady with an inferior grade over the past few years because they didn't win a title really doesn't get it. The early 2000s Patriot teams were very well balanced and had depth at almost every position. These days, the talent level overall is less than it used to be and the depth at some positions is non-existent. (We can debate why that is or what they've done differently as an organization, but that has nothing to do with Brady.) By comparison, the Pats have been allowing a TD more a game and way more yardage than they used to. Brady has to be "on" for the team to win.
The crux of the matter is that Brady has actually done far more as a player in recent years but has much less to show for it because the team around him has not been as good as the teams they fielded 8-10 years ago. These days, if Brady is off the Pats are usually sunk in that particular game. NE is not well versed and balanced enough to win in other areas. The defense usually cannot take over a game. They won't be able to come up with the crucial turnover. The running game can't take over and pound defenses and still get pounts. They won't get a big kick return to get better field position or a score to keep them in a game. All that plays into who wins and loses . . . especially in the playoffs. That could easily be their undoing against the Giants (just like the last time they faced off in the SB). When you need Sterling Moore to save your team and you can't even name the other guys on the field defensively, your team needs Tom Brady to be Tom Brady and play his best to win. The Ravens game was clearly an exception.
Devine Intervention
Footballguy
So your choosing to compare Cassel to Tom Brady after 07, as if that was when Brady REALLY came on as an ELITE QB, when the truth is in those years he has 0 SUPERBOWL RINGS!!!This is what I hate about Brady lovers. For the first half of his years when he put up mediocre stat and was dependent on his team, you all want to say its all about the rings.When he puts up record breaking stats and does mediocre in the post season you say " look at his stats! ".That is why I think he serves as a PERFECT example of how QB play is overrated. The more the Patriots leaned on Tom Brady the worse they did. Take every part of the NE Patriots out and look at JUST Tom Brady. What Tom Brady would you rather have?? Brady of the last 5 years or the first 5 years??Brady is obviously wayyyyy better of a QB the last 5 years than he was in the first 5. But...Brady of his last 5 years has zero rings, and his first 5, where he was by far an inferior QB in comparison has 3! Explain that....I never said he was the greatest, before, or after, 2007. I'm pointing out the glaring flaw in how the seasons are being interpretted. Get it?So he's only the greatest since 2007. Got it.The Pats offense and Brady's numbers made a quantum leap when Welker and Moss came on board. Brady came back from major surgery and a year out of the game and immediately surpassed Cassel's numbers by a substantial amount, throwing for 700 more yards, 7 more TDs, and more than a half a yard more per attempt. And he has continued to do so every year since. I'm not going to chart out every season since 2007, but trust me, it's easy to pick out Cassel's, it's the one with the lowest yardage, the lowest completion percentage, the worst YPA (by a minimum of half a yard), and the fewest TDs (by 7, or 33% of his total).Cassel played well for the position he was put in, but he was not Brady's equal in that offense by any stretch of the imagination. He was also the beneficiary of one of the easier schedules in recent history.Cassel's one season at QB compares very well to every Brady season before 2007.Edit: Which is Brady and which is Cassel?Losing five more games, putting up 179 fewer points, 700 total fewer yards, 1200 fewer passing yards, 29 fewer TD passes, and 2 more interceptions = team barely missing a beat.Code:Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD Int264 413 63.9 2843 18 12373 601 62.1 3764 28 14327 516 63.4 3693 21 11317 527 60.2 3620 23 12288 474 60.8 3692 28 14334 530 63.0 4110 26 14319 516 61.8 3529 24 12
Devine Intervention
Footballguy
Bradshaw?
bucksoh
Footballguy
Let me know when Brady gets his first SB win. If Taglibue was around the first three would have been
stripped fron him and Belicheat probally has a lifetime band! But with Kraft's butt buddy, everything was
swept under the rug.
SO I see it as Brady being 0-1 in SB appearances soon to be 0-2. But I will say for modern day QBs he belongs in the conversation.
stripped fron him and Belicheat probally has a lifetime band! But with Kraft's butt buddy, everything was
swept under the rug.
SO I see it as Brady being 0-1 in SB appearances soon to be 0-2. But I will say for modern day QBs he belongs in the conversation.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
What about him?Getting back to Brady, would people think more of him if he lost his first two Super Bowls but won his next 3? Then he would have won as a offensive force and his career progressed in the playoffs, had better stats, and his career seemed to improve? What's the difference either way? He won 3 SBs so far . . . what difference does it make where in his career he won them?
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Oh boy . . .
bostonfred
Footballguy
Your point about Welker undermines your point about brady. If cassel threw for so many yards to welker, and still ended up with 1300 fewer yards than brady got with the exact same receivers the year before, then brady must have done a lot more with the other guys (and he did). comparing cassel to the years when brady had neither moss nor welker, when cassel had both, is also absurd. cassel was a good qb who inherited the keys to a great offense. Brady led that great offense to the best offensive season in nfl history. Cassel led them to 11 wins and an above average offensive season.
Cassel had 11 wins in 2008.
Brady had 10 wins in 2009.
Do you seriously want to use team record to compare Tom Brady (who you say is the greatest of all time) and a guy who has shown that he's mediocre at best, who led the team to more wins?
Wes Welker, the team's leading receiver, caught 1 less pass for 10 less yards under Matt freakin' Cassel than he did under Tom Brady in the subsequent season.
Saying it was a great offense doesnt undermine bradys accomplishments. Other qbs have had great offenses, and none has led their team to as many points as brady did. Manning had harrison, wayne, clark, edge, glenn, and even got double digit tds from brandon stokley, and he still didn't lead his team to a 16-0 record or as many points as the 2007 pats. Steve young and joe montana had jerry rice and never put up numbers like brady did. Not even close.
In fact, brady putting up numbers throughout his career that are comparable to a good qb throwing to a great set of receivers is even more impressive, considering the shlubs he threw to from 2001 to 2006. Six of his ten years he was throwing to guys like troy brow, david patten, deion branch, david givens, reche caldwell, christin fauria, ben watson, daniel graham, and so on. He got two good years from running backs antowain smith and corey dillon. Other than that, he carried the entire offense of a superbowl winning team. sure, they weren't number one in the nfl every year to start his career. But they were good enough to go 14-2 with no running game and a defense which wasn't number one in the nfl and go on to win it all. Its not like brady was some tag along during those years. He turned an 0-2 team coming off a 5-11 season into a contender overnight.
I understand that you're not saying Brady is/isn't GOAT. And I'm not saying he is or isn't GOAT. He's a great QB. Period. I don't really see anyone arguing that he isn't great.
But the bolded is a perfect example (and I believe from reading with your prior post that you're in agreement here, so it's not really direct at you) why you can't measure greatness through SB rings/appearances. You can't compare Peyton to Brady and say Brady is better because he has more rings, when Peyton's been pretty much asked to carry his team from day 1, and since Brady's been asked to do it, he hasn't won a superbowl.
For a non-well rounded team, the margin of error is just too small to ask a QB to play perfectly for the 3 or 4 games required to win a superbowl, especially considering they'll usually be facing off against teams that are either well-rounded themselves or have the luxury of an equally great qb.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
He's not that good. Aikman is another example. Good, but certainly not great.
The Gibbs-era Skins are pretty much the perfect counterexample. Many guys were on two or three SB winners (4 trips to the game), much like the Belichek-era Patriots. Except they had three different QBs on the three SB winners. None of them were particularly good; Rypien was amazing in the SB year, but if the criteria is greatness in the SB-winning year instead of being a great QB generally then you need to start taking guys like Roethisberger and Brady off the list. The Skins QBs were average type guys, basically interchangeable. That shows as well as anything that a great coach/GM/organization with quality personnel can win the Super Bowl (multiple Super Bowls, in fact) without exceptional QB play.
Last edited by a moderator:
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Part of the issue in even discussing who is the GOAT at anything is there needs to be some outline or definition as to what that means and what criteria to evaluate.I personally think Peyton was a better passer and better on field strategist than Brady. They both have held records and won accolades for their regular season performances. However, in terms of a total resume, I think Brady would probably have more on it when you factor in at least 3 Super Bowl wins and 5 Super Bowl appearnaces. Does that mean Brady was a better QB? No. But if the goal is to get to and win the SB, Brady has done that more times than Manning has.
So if someone were to ask me who the better quarterback was, I would say Manning. But if you asked me who had a better overall career, I would probably say Brady. If you asked me if I could pick one of those two to start a team with both of them in their prime (and the surrounding team and coaching staff would be exacly the same for both players), I would pick Manning.
Devine Intervention
Footballguy
I love how we say Brady finally has good WRs. With the exemption of Moss, who is this good WR core that he has now?? Every part of this NE offense is "plug ins". Do you think Wes Welker is really some hidden gem that came from no where but is actually that good???? He's a nobody that fit into a scheme. Do you think Edelman is great too?? They plugged him right in with similar success. This offense is one big scheme. Take out A and put in B and dont miss a beat. Yeah sure, when the same guy is in that scheme for longer he plays better in it but its all scheme.Your point about Welker undermines your point about brady. If cassel threw for so many yards to welker, and still ended up with 1300 fewer yards than brady got with the exact same receivers the year before, then brady must have done a lot more with the other guys (and he did). comparing cassel to the years when brady had neither moss nor welker, when cassel had both, is also absurd. cassel was a good qb who inherited the keys to a great offense. Brady led that great offense to the best offensive season in nfl history. Cassel led them to 11 wins and an above average offensive season.
Cassel had 11 wins in 2008.
Brady had 10 wins in 2009.
Do you seriously want to use team record to compare Tom Brady (who you say is the greatest of all time) and a guy who has shown that he's mediocre at best, who led the team to more wins?
Wes Welker, the team's leading receiver, caught 1 less pass for 10 less yards under Matt freakin' Cassel than he did under Tom Brady in the subsequent season.
Saying it was a great offense doesnt undermine bradys accomplishments. Other qbs have had great offenses, and none has led their team to as many points as brady did. Manning had harrison, wayne, clark, edge, glenn, and even got double digit tds from brandon stokley, and he still didn't lead his team to a 16-0 record or as many points as the 2007 pats. Steve young and joe montana had jerry rice and never put up numbers like brady did. Not even close.
In fact, brady putting up numbers throughout his career that are comparable to a good qb throwing to a great set of receivers is even more impressive, considering the shlubs he threw to from 2001 to 2006. Six of his ten years he was throwing to guys like troy brow, david patten, deion branch, david givens, reche caldwell, christin fauria, ben watson, daniel graham, and so on. He got two good years from running backs antowain smith and corey dillon. Other than that, he carried the entire offense of a superbowl winning team. sure, they weren't number one in the nfl every year to start his career. But they were good enough to go 14-2 with no running game and a defense which wasn't number one in the nfl and go on to win it all. Its not like brady was some tag along during those years. He turned an 0-2 team coming off a 5-11 season into a contender overnight.
Green-Ellis, Woodhead, Faulk, Edelman, Branch, and a list of other nobodies that got plugged into that system and churned out numbers
bostonfred
Footballguy
Your argument hinges on the notion that brady changed in 2007. He didn't. The offensive talent aroud him did. Until 2007, brady had very little offensive talent to work with. Turning those guys into perennial contenders was a tremendous feat. Manning did more, statswise, with harrison and clark and edge and co, but brady had to lead a team with less talent to championships, and he was able to do so. In 2007, brady got randy moss and wes welker. In his first year with two new receivers - when conventional wisdom says it takes time for new receivers to come together with their qb - brady not only put up the best numbers of his career, he put up the best numbers of anyones career, ever, leading the pats to the highest scoring season in nfl history. In his fist year with those guys.The idea that brady got better when he got welker and moss is absurd. He was always great, but the measurement of his greatness was turning an offense with inferior talent into a superbowl caliber squad, not setting statistical records.That's the same reason that comparing brady and manning side by side using only stats is absurd. When brady had no weapons and manning was surrounded by all pros and hall of famers at left tackle, receiver, tight end and running back, of course manning had better numbers. But that didn't mean manning was playing better.Similarly, when brady put up 50 tds in in007, he didnt do that all by himself, either. The reason we point to that as an example of his greatness is not because of his individual acoomplishment of throwing 50 tds, but because other qbs throwing to great teams have never put up 50 tds before.And if tds don't light your candle, the same can be true of ints and yards, since brady broke records in those, too. When he had a good offense around him.What we know now is that whether he has randy moss or not, he is capable of an mvp season. Whether he has troy brown or wes welker or reche caldwell, he can take the pats to an afc championship game. Whether his defense is top five in the nfl or bottom five in nfl history, he can take them to a superbowl. All of those things are valid measurements of his career. There is hardly any area where you can look at his resume and say, sure, but can he do this? Because he's done it all. That's why, looking at all he has done, with different offensive coordinators, different receivers, terrible running backs, defense alll over the gamut, and every other adversity he's faced, we know without a doubt that he's the greatest of all times.
Devine Intervention
Footballguy
This is even worse. Your saying Brady was the same QB all along and FINALLY got a team to work with. So if the missing pieces are finally added and he has FINALLY got a team around him, then WHY did he have less success in the playoffs???If he is SOOOO good without those players and could do it without them, then why couldnt he with them???
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Are people so blind to not see that the defenses the Pats have rolled out in recent years are leaps and bounds worse than the ones Brady had in his first few seasons in the league? To me, that is blatantly obvious.How would Roethlisberger have done with a middle of the road defense (points against wise) and near the bottom of the league defense (yardage wise)? One guy can not single handedly overcome the short comings of an entire side of the football.I don't think it's a knock on Brady that guys like Seymour, Seau, Law, Milloy, Vrabel, Bruschi, McGinnest, Samuel, etc. are no longer on the team and the team has fallen short. The Pats have Mayo and Wilfork and a bunch of guys with Patriots jerseys on now. Not nearly the same.
Devine Intervention
Footballguy
Im not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing but that asks the question...Is Brady's SB success because of his defense that he no longer has??Or is Brady's lack of success in his recent playoff years because his bad defense??So was it Brady winning these championships or the defense??
Last edited by a moderator:
bostonfred
Footballguy
again, you're strting from the perspective that people who believe brady is the greatest of all times believe he singlehandedly won those superbowls. I don't think anyone is saying that.
The reason bradys championships are impressive is because you have to play well enough to win your way into the playoffs and then go on an undefeated streak against the best teams in the nfl, and it is hard to do that once. Doing that three times is incredible. Doing it three times in four years is unheard of. And when the most important player on the field does enough to make that happen, you take notice.
Brady played well in the cold, he played better in a dome, he played game manager in some games, and got into shootouts in others, he ran a score in in the snow in an emotional win against oakland, and he led a game winning drive under enormous pressure against a heavily favored st louis team with a turnover creating defense that everyone remembers. He did it all.
But it obviously wasnt him alone. Plenty of people mention how the patriots had top ten defenses those years. The thing is, most years, there are as many as ten teams in the nfl with top ten defense, and at most one of them wins the championship. And with so little offensive talent or offensive production from the players on his side of the ball, the onus was on brady to make sure his team was the one that did it in each of those years. And he did.
That doesn't mean brady is a cartoon superhero whose power is winning big games. He's just the guy who was able to take very good defenses and crappy offenses and turn them into great overall teams.
In 2006, he led reche caldwell and co to a huge lead in the afccg against the colts, and it wasn't until 3/4 of the secondary had left the game that manning was able to make his one big playoff comeback of his career. If the pats d hadn't folded, we would be talking about yet another season when brady singlehandedly leda bad offense to a superbowl.
In 2007, they lost a close game in the superbowl, but they had gone on an incredile run that included beating the eventual superbowl champs, the ravens, and 16 other teams without losing. Its hard to say that brady did a bad job of leading the pats to one of the top 50 teams in nfl history.
In 2008, he was hurt.
In 2009, he led the team to the playoffs, but lost welker the week before the playoff game against the ravens and the offense never recovered. They simply didn't have the talent around him or the time to adjust.
So that leaves 2010 for the big year when brady didn't do enough. And sure, it was disappointing, especially when they were considered the favorites headed into the playoffs once again. But that is hardly as bad as you're making it out to be.
The reason bradys championships are impressive is because you have to play well enough to win your way into the playoffs and then go on an undefeated streak against the best teams in the nfl, and it is hard to do that once. Doing that three times is incredible. Doing it three times in four years is unheard of. And when the most important player on the field does enough to make that happen, you take notice.
Brady played well in the cold, he played better in a dome, he played game manager in some games, and got into shootouts in others, he ran a score in in the snow in an emotional win against oakland, and he led a game winning drive under enormous pressure against a heavily favored st louis team with a turnover creating defense that everyone remembers. He did it all.
But it obviously wasnt him alone. Plenty of people mention how the patriots had top ten defenses those years. The thing is, most years, there are as many as ten teams in the nfl with top ten defense, and at most one of them wins the championship. And with so little offensive talent or offensive production from the players on his side of the ball, the onus was on brady to make sure his team was the one that did it in each of those years. And he did.
That doesn't mean brady is a cartoon superhero whose power is winning big games. He's just the guy who was able to take very good defenses and crappy offenses and turn them into great overall teams.
In 2006, he led reche caldwell and co to a huge lead in the afccg against the colts, and it wasn't until 3/4 of the secondary had left the game that manning was able to make his one big playoff comeback of his career. If the pats d hadn't folded, we would be talking about yet another season when brady singlehandedly leda bad offense to a superbowl.
In 2007, they lost a close game in the superbowl, but they had gone on an incredile run that included beating the eventual superbowl champs, the ravens, and 16 other teams without losing. Its hard to say that brady did a bad job of leading the pats to one of the top 50 teams in nfl history.
In 2008, he was hurt.
In 2009, he led the team to the playoffs, but lost welker the week before the playoff game against the ravens and the offense never recovered. They simply didn't have the talent around him or the time to adjust.
So that leaves 2010 for the big year when brady didn't do enough. And sure, it was disappointing, especially when they were considered the favorites headed into the playoffs once again. But that is hardly as bad as you're making it out to be.
Last edited by a moderator:
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I thought we covered this already, but apparently we need to start over. ONE PLAYER DOES NOT WIN A FOOTBALL GAME. I already spelled out that the Pats had better all around teams in the past.Clearly Brady was aided by having played on better teams in the past. Like Manning was for many years, now Brady is being asked to win more on his own with a suspect defense.To answer the question, the PATRIOTS won those championships, just like any other TEAM won championships.
GoFishTN
Footballguy
Adam Vinatieri says hi.
AmosMoses
Footballguy
2 super bowls in the past 5 years.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.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?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.untrue2 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.'Mello said: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.
You may dislike them but facts are facts.
ivnabru
Footballguy
Look at what you quoted. What I said was true. If I had said something different than yes it would possibly be untrue. But I didn't.2 super bowls in the past 5 years.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.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?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.untrue2 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.'Mello said:
You may dislike them but facts are facts.
dparker713
Footballguy
The more logical explanation than Brady was selectively great in his early years is that he was NOT great in his early years - his team was great. Not required to carry should be read as not able to carry.As for non-great QBs winning multiple SBs, I throw out Bradshaw and Aikmen. Phil Simms would have won two if not for an injury as well.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
I think in many of those situations those quarterback s had very good season or playoffs.They were outlier years of their own career.
dparker713
Footballguy
After this season, you need to rethink the talent level of the players Peyton was playing with.
AmosMoses
Footballguy
Don't make special rules for yourself. 2/5Look at what you quoted. What I said was true. If I had said something different than yes it would possibly be untrue. But I didn't.2 super bowls in the past 5 years.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.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?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.untrue2 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.
You may dislike them but facts are facts.
parrot
Footballguy
That poor strawman. Where did I mention anything about rings? I'm just pointing out how stupid the Cassel reasoning is, because in the year prior to, and now for multiple years after, Cassel's year, BRADY HAS PUT UP SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER NUMBERS. So the idea that Cassel stepped in and they just "didn't miss a beat" is complete and utter BS.So your choosing to compare Cassel to Tom Brady after 07, as if that was when Brady REALLY came on as an ELITE QB, when the truth is in those years he has 0 SUPERBOWL RINGS!!!This is what I hate about Brady lovers. For the first half of his years when he put up mediocre stat and was dependent on his team, you all want to say its all about the rings.I never said he was the greatest, before, or after, 2007. I'm pointing out the glaring flaw in how the seasons are being interpretted. Get it?So he's only the greatest since 2007. Got it.The Pats offense and Brady's numbers made a quantum leap when Welker and Moss came on board. Brady came back from major surgery and a year out of the game and immediately surpassed Cassel's numbers by a substantial amount, throwing for 700 more yards, 7 more TDs, and more than a half a yard more per attempt. And he has continued to do so every year since. I'm not going to chart out every season since 2007, but trust me, it's easy to pick out Cassel's, it's the one with the lowest yardage, the lowest completion percentage, the worst YPA (by a minimum of half a yard), and the fewest TDs (by 7, or 33% of his total).Cassel played well for the position he was put in, but he was not Brady's equal in that offense by any stretch of the imagination. He was also the beneficiary of one of the easier schedules in recent history.Cassel's one season at QB compares very well to every Brady season before 2007.Edit: Which is Brady and which is Cassel?Losing five more games, putting up 179 fewer points, 700 total fewer yards, 1200 fewer passing yards, 29 fewer TD passes, and 2 more interceptions = team barely missing a beat.Code:Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD Int264 413 63.9 2843 18 12373 601 62.1 3764 28 14327 516 63.4 3693 21 11317 527 60.2 3620 23 12288 474 60.8 3692 28 14334 530 63.0 4110 26 14319 516 61.8 3529 24 12
bostonfred
Footballguy
Why? Wayne was already coming off a down year with peyton, and was clearly not invested, so his dropoff was hardly a shock once manning was out. The colts had some of the worst backup qbs in the league, and made no effort to hide it. Garcon had a solid year despite changing qbs repeatedly. Sure, the colts lost a ton of games, but they were also openly talking about how much they wanted luck early in the season, and saying they wouldn't trade the number one pick for three firsts. Even with poor qb play, they were competitive in lots of games, and miraculously lost in the fourth quarter. As soon as they said caldwells job was on the line if he didn't win a game, bang, they won two games. This was the most blatant example of tanking I've ever seen in the nfl.
Donnybrook
Footballguy
I would take Matt Light over Tanik Glenn any day of the week and twice on Sundays. It is unbelievable to me how underrated Light is.
benson_will_lead_the_way
Footballguy
Invested 1st round draft picks on skill players:Colts: Edgerrin James, Donald Brown, Dallas Clark, Reggie Wayne, Anthony GonzalezPatriots: Lawrence Maroney
jackdubl
Footballguy
Those were all good or great qb's who had good seasons when they won, so nothing to address.Let's also not forget that Brady made what should have been the game-winning drive against the Giants in that fourth SB, but for a fluke play given up by the defense. I think you have to give him credit there also.
Last edited by a moderator:
bostonfred
Footballguy
Simple. You can't win a ring without consistently great team play, and no player is more important to their team than their qb. It is possible to win a ring without great qb play - dilfer and the ravens are constantly cited - but it takes alltime great play from other positions on the team to make up for it. Manning played like crap for most of his superbowl run, throwing seven picks against three ints, and was bailed out by fantastic defensive play in almost every game. But even in that run, he needed to put up a big comeback against the pats to keep them in it. You don't need to play great individually every game, but it takes a great player at the qb position to play well enough for most championship caliber teams to get there. And even then, you need to play consistently enough to avoid throwing the pick six that sealed the game for the saints, or the four picks against the pats, or lead your team to three points against the pats the following year after your 49 td season, or choke three times in the fourth quarter against the steelers, when sacks, interceptions, and just plain stupid throws negated the many opportunities (including the bettis goal line fumble and polamalu int overruling) that put you back in the game.
Would manning be a better player if he had won the superbowl against the saints? Of course not. But a better player would have done more in the postseason. After a dozen or so seasons of watching his own screwups cost the team a game in the postseason - and you can't pin any of the above on his defense - you can't call it bad luck anymore. He just doesn't play as well in the postseason for some reason. Maybe its the cold, the pressure, the quality of defenses he faces, or whatever else. The reality is that the greatest players - like tom brady - have faced those same elements and won. And that, as much as bradys triple crown of td, int, and yardage records, or any of the countless other accolades, will always separate the two.
Similar threads
- Poll
