If Tom Brady Never Played Again (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

I wasn't aware it was called the Hall of Regular Season Accomplishments. If it were, I agree, Brady will probably never receive the prestigious "Manning Award". But the Hall of Fame is about the dominant layers of their era. Nobody has ever been as dominant as Brady's Patriots. Never. Yes, other players have had more yards and TDs, but he's been the driving force on a team with no other sure hall of famer players that many will call a dynasty.

Then why are people saying "no" to Davis? The Broncos were 7-1 in the postseason with Terrell (winning the last 7 games). Back-to-back Super Bowl wins. SB MVP. NFL MVP. Almost 160 yards of offense and 1.5 TD per post season game.I'm not pushing for Davis to get in, as I don't think he played long enough (as I think of other players as well). But why is there limited love for an injured Davis getting a mulligan for his knee issues?

 

[Chase Stuart]

That's where we agree to disagree. THREE SUPER BOWLS, not one. And he was MVP of two of them. Chase, honestly I think you're letting your Jets fanboy blinders cloud your judgment here. QBs are recognized first and foremost for whether they win the big one (which is why Montana is on everyone's short list for best QB ever while Marino, despite his statistical accomplishments has plenty of detractors), and Brady has done it not once, not twice, but three times.

Tom Brady could play his way OUT of the HOF over the next leg of his career, but if he didn't play another down, he would get in without any worry.

I wasn't aware it was called the Hall of Regular Season Accomplishments. If it were, I agree, Brady will probably never receive the prestigious "Manning Award".

But the Hall of Fame is about the dominant layers of their era. Nobody has ever been as dominant as Brady's Patriots. Never. Yes, other players have had more yards and TDs, but he's been the driving force on a team with no other sure hall of famer players that many will call a dynasty.

The Patriots have no doubt been the dominant team of the past few years. But to say that the QB of the most dominant team for four years has to make the HOF is laughable. It's by far Brady's biggest chip for sure; he has no other worthwhile accomplishments.But to ignore: the Patriots having one of the best defenses in recent memory; the Patriots having one of the greatest coaching staffs of all time; the Patriots having an extremely clutch field goal kicker, is silly. If Adam Vinatieri misses the FG in the snow against the Raiders, they lose. Does that make Brady any better or worse of a QB? Of course not. But some feel that Bradier is holier than thou, has a magic gift that makes everyone around him better, and could not under any circumstances lose a big game. None of that is true, and he's merely been one of the best cogs of a great team.

For what it's worth, I think last year's Patriots team had the most impressive post-season of any team I've ever seen. By none. Brady was excellent, but to put a QB into the HOF after four years is really

A question for all the Brady backers: Was he the best QB each of the last four years? Was he a top three QB for each of the last four years? If he's only in your top three for the last two years (the way I see it), then he's far, far away from the HOF.

Let him at least reach 30,000 yards please.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Is winning a title imperative for HOF induction? Of the 16 Super Bowl era QB already inducted, 6 never won a Super Bowl.

Bob Waterfield 2 NFL titles

Otto Graham 7 titles (3 NFL)

George Blanda (26) None Won 2 AFL titles (pre SB Era)

Len Dawson (19) One

Sonny Jurgensen (18) None

Johnny Unitas (18) One

Fran Tarkenton (18) None 3 SB appearances

Y.A. Tittle (17) Not in Super Bowl era

Dan Marino (17) None

Joe Montana (16) Four

John Elway (16) Two

Bart Starr (16) Two

Dan Fouts (15) None

Bobby Layne (15) Not in Super Bowl era 3 NFL titles

Steve Young (15) Three (One as a starter)

Terry Bradshaw (14) Four

Bob Griese (14) Two

Jim Kelly (11) None 4 SB appearances

Joe Namath (13) One

Norm Van Brocklin (12) Not in Super Bowl era 1 NFL title

Roger Staubach (11) Two

David,You're definitely not painting the whole picture here. First of all, no one says it's mandatory to have won a title to get HOF consideration, but it's darn sure a key criteria for many inductees at the QB position. The guys who didn't win a title either a) appeared in a bunch of title games (e.g., Kelly, Tarkenton) or b) absolutely lit up the statistical record book (e.g., Marino, Fouts).

But another issue i have with how you presented the data is excluding the pre-SB QBs from the discussion. Of the 21 current QBs in the HOF (of which you excluded Otto Graham, arguably the best ever, and Bob Waterfield), 15 of the 21 won at least one NFL title. Two others, Jim Kelly and Fran Tarkenton, appeared in 7 more between them. Winning titles is a HUGE factor in a QB's legacy.

Jason,You're looking at this backwards. You're saying look at the HOF--those great QBs won SBs. I agree with you, that great QBs are more likely to win Super Bowls than non-great QBs. However, to then say Brady is a great QB because he won the QB is

 

[David Yudkin]

But another issue i have with how you presented the data is excluding the pre-SB QBs from the discussion.

I said from the get-go that i listed players that were active after 1960.

Here are all the other current HOF QB that played 1960 or later and the number of years that each played.

 

[4thAndForever]

The only reason Brady wouldn't play again is if he got seriously injured or killed. He's been damned-near perfect from what we've seen so far. If he couldn't play again because he got injured or killed, it would only add to his mystique.

 

[David Yudkin]

But to ignore: the Patriots having one of the best defenses in recent memory; the Patriots having one of the greatest coaching staffs of all time; the Patriots having an extremely clutch field goal kicker, is silly. If Adam Vinatieri misses the FG in the snow against the Raiders, they lose. Does that make Brady any better or worse of a QB? Of course not. But some feel that Bradier is holier than thou, has a magic gift that makes everyone around him better, and could not under any circumstances lose a big game. None of that is true, and he's merely been one of the best cogs of a great team.

This points out how much luck and good fortune has to fall on a team to win or lose. If Vinatieri missed his clutch kicks, the Pats might not have won any Super Bowls. Say they lost to Oakland in 2001. And they got called for all the defensive holding calls in 2003. And McNabb rallied the troops to get to OT and then win. If Brady had gone to only 1 SB and lost, would we even be discussing him as a HOF candidate. (I know that's not what happened, but a lot of what happened had nothing to do with him.)

 

[Chase Stuart]

Let's take a look at Charlie Weis' career:

1991-1992: RB coach for NYG

Rodney Hampton ranks 4th and 6th for fantasy purposes. He never again finished in the top ten once Weis left, and he was clearly at his best the two years Weis coached him.

1993-1994: TE coach for NE

Ben Coates had played two seasons before Weis arrived in NE, totaling just 266 yards. Weis' first year with Coates, he jumped to the third best TE in FF, posting 659-8. The following season, Coates posted his best year by far, and set a TE record for catches: 96-1174-7. Weis remained in NE until 1996, and Coates produced pretty well until 1998.

1995: RB coach for NE

Curtis Martin was a rookie in 1995, so there's no previous performance with which to compare. Despite having a phenomenal, HOF career, Martin's best year for fantasy purposes was his rookie season. He was the second ranked RB that year.

1996: WR coach for NE

Another year, another position change, and another rookie to mold. Weis' coached Terry Glenn to ROY honors, producing 90-1132-6....the best year of his career.

Note: Charlie Weis coached the RBs in 1995 and the WRs in 1996 for the Patriots. In 1995, the Patriots ranked tenth in rushing yards and fourteenth in passing yards. They ranked 14th in yards per carry and 29th in yards per attempt.

In 1996, the Patriots ranked 26th in rushing yards, and third in passing yards. They ranked 25th in yards per carry and 19th in yards per attempt.

1997-1999: OC/WR coach for NYJ

Vinny Testaverde posted by far the best year of his career in 1998 under Weis. Testaverde threw 29 TDs and 7 INTs, and went 12-1 as a starter.

From http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=coachbio&bio=515

From 1997 to 1999, Weis called the offensive plays for the New York Jets. In his first season with the Jets, New York improved from 1-15 in 1996 to 9-7 in 1997. The eight-game improvement was the best in franchise history. In 1998, Weis was named the offensive coordinator/wide receivers coach after a year of handling the dual responsibilities. By season’s end, his offense ranked among the greatest in franchise history and led the team to their first division title. The team scored 416 points, the second highest total in franchise history (419 points in 1968) and averaged 357.2 yards per game. It was the second-best season average in Jets history (368.5 ypg in 1985). Both of Weis’ starting receivers, Johnson (1,131) and Chrebet (1,083), eclipsed the 1,000-yard receiving plateau for the first time in their respective careers. It also marked the first time since 1986 that two Jets receivers reached that milestone in one season.

In 1999, Weis’ offense produced the league’s second-leading rusher and the AFC’s fourth ranked receiver. Martin rushed for 1,464 yards, falling just 90 yards shy of the rushing title. Johnson led the team and established career-highs with 89 receptions for 1,170 yards. He earned his second consecutive Pro Bowl nod at the end of the season.

2000-2004: OC/QB coach for NE

Weis became QB coach in 2001, Brady's first year starting. He's looked pretty good.

The point of all this? Charlie Weis has had tremendous success at every level and by every measure of his NFL career. Terry Glenn and Ben Coathes thrived under Weis, as did Curtis Martin, and Tom Brady. There's enough speculation on my part that Brady wouldn't have been able to win the SB without a great defense and great coaching. As a result, there's just too small of a sample to vote him in after four years.

 

[coolnerd]

Brady is a different case than anyone else, which is driving this conversasion. 3 of 4 Superbowl wins is historic, but they have come at the very front of his career. In fact, until the first Super Bowl win there was question to his status as a starter. Most of the other guys were in the middle of thier career or at least had started for a couple of years before getting to the Superbowl.Stastically, as many of you have pointed out, Brady is above average, but not dominate. I wonder if his stats continue along the same manner how he will be viewed when he is 34 and 6 or 7 years away from Superbowl victories? will we think of him like a Favre or Bledsoe? Anyway, despite this moment of objective thought, I still think 3 of 4 gets Brady in the Hall of Fame no matter what.

 

[bostonfred]

The Patriots have no doubt been the dominant team of the past few years. But to say that the QB of the most dominant team for four years has to make the HOF is laughable. It's by far Brady's biggest chip for sure; he has no other worthwhile accomplishments.

No other worthwhile accomplishments? Leading the league in TDs wasn't worthwhile? Leading his team to 21 straight wins wasn't even a slightly worthwhile accomplishment? Let that last one sink in. 21 straight wins.

Think about the level that specifically a QB must play to win just one NFL game. Then realize he did it again. And again. And again. And again. Then went into his bye week, and came back and did it again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. Then goes into the playoffs and outplays one of the Co-MVPs of the league. Then beats the other Co-MVP the next game. Then wins a shootout in the Superbowl to win his second Superbowl MVP. Then beats the eventual repeat MVP head to head to start the next season. Then he wins again. Then the #2 pass D in the league gets two weeks to prepare for him and he wins again. And again. Then he beats the team with the best record in the NFC. Then he beats the team with the best record in the AFC. 21 straight wins.

Of course he wasn't the only one on the team winning those games. But he did this with mediocre running backs and with a ragtag group of receivers. And the Pats averaged 24 points a game over that streak. Certainly that's some kind of accomplisment, isn't it?

But to ignore: the Patriots having one of the best defenses in recent memory; the Patriots having one of the greatest coaching staffs of all time; the Patriots having an extremely clutch field goal kicker, is silly. If Adam Vinatieri misses the FG in the snow against the Raiders, they lose. Does that make Brady any better or worse of a QB? Of course not. But some feel that Bradier is holier than thou, has a magic gift that makes everyone around him better, and could not under any circumstances lose a big game. None of that is true, and he's merely been one of the best cogs of a great team.

Vinatieri making that kick was amazing. But Brady getting the team in position to make that kick, and to make the game winner in OT, was also amazing. And if that's the only game you can point to where Brady didn't somehow win the game for his team, out of nine playoff games, you have to give him some credit, no?

For what it's worth, I think last year's Patriots team had the most impressive post-season of any team I've ever seen. By none. Brady was excellent, but to put a QB into the HOF after four years is really

What about Gale Sayers, who had four complete seasons and only two 1000 yard seasons?

A question for all the Brady backers: Was he the best QB each of the last four years? Was he a top three QB for each of the last four years? If he's only in your top three for the last two years (the way I see it), then he's far, far away from the HOF.

Who do you think was better over the last four years?

Let him at least reach 30,000 yards please.

Like Vinny Testaverde?

 

[bostonfred]

2000-2004: OC/QB coach for NE

Weis became QB coach in 2001, Brady's first year starting. He's looked pretty good.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[CalBear]

I think people are answering "is he one of the best of all time" rather than "will he be in the Hall." Realistically, there's no way he makes the HOF based on what he's done so far; think about the selection process. Do you think 80% of the selectors value postseason success over all other factors? Do you think Brady compares favorably to the other players he'll be competing with for a spot in the Hall: Rice, E.Smith, Favre, Faulk, CMart, Deion Sanders, to name a few? Even guys like Tim Brown and Bettis are stronger candidates than Brady.

 

[David Yudkin]

Since this is my thread and I work here, I'm going off on another tangent. This time for Kurt Warner.In the 1999-2001 time frame, Warner averaged 293 passing yards and 2.3 passing TD per game. That's 4688/36 for a 16-game season.With Warner at QB, the Rams went 40-10 (.800) and won one and lost one Super Bowl. He won 2 LEAGUE MVP awards and a SB MVP.The offense was second to none, scoring 526, 540, and 503 points. That's an average of almost 33 points per game over a 3-year stretch. There have only been 9 teams to score 500+ points, and no other team has done it more than once while the Rams did 3 consecutive years.They outscoed the #2 team in points by 83, 55, and 90 points respectively. The Rams in that stretch were the greatest offensive machine in NFL history.With Warner hurt in 2002, the Rams scoring dropped by 187 points. Clearly, without a healthy Warner, they were never the same (and the rest of the offense was close to intact).If Brady has posted some unprecidented things on his resume, certainly Warner has as well. But no one gives Warner the time of day for HOF consideration.If Brady can make a case as a HOF lock over a few seasons, why can't Warner? If Brady can post marginal stats for a few more years and still be a lock, why couldn't Warner post 3 more marginal years and get in, as no one seems to even use "Warner" and "HOF" in the same sentence.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The Patriots have no doubt been the dominant team of the past few years. But to say that the QB of the most dominant team for four years has to make the HOF is laughable. It's by far Brady's biggest chip for sure; he has no other worthwhile accomplishments.

No other worthwhile accomplishments? Leading the league in TDs wasn't worthwhile? Leading his team to 21 straight wins wasn't even a slightly worthwhile accomplishment? Let that last one sink in. 21 straight wins.

Think about the level that specifically a QB must play to win just one NFL game. Then realize he did it again. And again. And again. And again. Then went into his bye week, and came back and did it again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. Then goes into the playoffs and outplays one of the Co-MVPs of the league. Then beats the other Co-MVP the next game. Then wins a shootout in the Superbowl to win his second Superbowl MVP. Then beats the eventual repeat MVP head to head to start the next season. Then he wins again. Then the #2 pass D in the league gets two weeks to prepare for him and he wins again. And again. Then he beats the team with the best record in the NFC. Then he beats the team with the best record in the AFC. 21 straight wins.

Of course he wasn't the only one on the team winning those games. But he did this with mediocre running backs and with a ragtag group of receivers. And the Pats averaged 24 points a game over that streak. Certainly that's some kind of accomplisment, isn't it?

But to ignore: the Patriots having one of the best defenses in recent memory; the Patriots having one of the greatest coaching staffs of all time; the Patriots having an extremely clutch field goal kicker, is silly. If Adam Vinatieri misses the FG in the snow against the Raiders, they lose. Does that make Brady any better or worse of a QB? Of course not. But some feel that Bradier is holier than thou, has a magic gift that makes everyone around him better, and could not under any circumstances lose a big game. None of that is true, and he's merely been one of the best cogs of a great team.

Vinatieri making that kick was amazing. But Brady getting the team in position to make that kick, and to make the game winner in OT, was also amazing. And if that's the only game you can point to where Brady didn't somehow win the game for his team, out of nine playoff games, you have to give him some credit, no?

For what it's worth, I think last year's Patriots team had the most impressive post-season of any team I've ever seen. By none. Brady was excellent, but to put a QB into the HOF after four years is really

What about Gale Sayers, who had four complete seasons and only two 1000 yard seasons?

A question for all the Brady backers: Was he the best QB each of the last four years? Was he a top three QB for each of the last four years? If he's only in your top three for the last two years (the way I see it), then he's far, far away from the HOF.

Who do you think was better over the last four years?

Let him at least reach 30,000 yards please.

Like Vinny Testaverde?

21 straight wins IS amazing. I guess I just don't give QBs as much credit as others do when it comes to team success. Jay Fiedler went 10-4, 11-5, 7-3 and 8-4 with Miami from 2000-2003. That's a total of 36-16. Manning has gone 34-14 the last three years. Mark Brunell went 8-5, 9-3, 13-2 from 1997-1999, for a total of 30-10. Brady has gone 48-15 in his career.

Trent Dilfer won his last five games for the Bucs in 1999 (no playoffs), 13 straight games for the Ravens (including playoffs), and four straight starts for the Seahawks in 2001. That means Dilfer won 22 straight games with three different teams. Suffice it to say, I don't think many would argue that winning 22 straight with three different teams is LESS impressive than winning 21 straight with the same team.

Medicore QBs can post very good records and mediocre QBs can have impressive winning streaks. Ben Roethlisberger went 14-0 this year. Brady has only had one impressive statistical feat, leading the league in TDs in 2002.

For my money, Brady was no different than Trent Dilfer in 2001, and Trent Green in 2002. The last two years Brady has posted impressive stats AND Super Bowl victories. But two HOF years are not enough.

 

[bostonfred]

With Warner hurt in 2002, the Rams scoring dropped by 187 points. Clearly, without a healthy Warner, they were never the same (and the rest of the offense was close to intact).

In 2001, the Rams had quality players at WR3 and WR4, which are required in that offense. In 2002, those players were gone.Injury or no, these numbers with the same offense during the same year are what killed Warner's reputation:

Marc Bulger 7 games, 1826 yards, 14 TDs, 6 INTs

Kurt Warner 7 games, 1431 yards, 3 TDs, 11 INTs

The fact that Bulger has continued to do well in that offense suggests that Warner was in the right place at the right time. (not so with the guy Brady replaced, and what he did with the same team)

Also, as dominant as Warner was during his 2.5 healthy seasons, he won one Superbowl and had Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, and the best running back in the league. (not so with Brady, who won Superbowls with guys like Antowain Smith and Kevin Faulk at RB, and castoff David Patten and promoted WR3 Troy Brown as their starting WRs)

Just because Warner was relatively dominant for a short period of time, doesn't mean this is the same situation.

 

[radballs.]

If Brady retires tomorrow, he does not make the HOF period. Are there any Pat fans here that can agree with that? Ridiculous.

 

[bostonfred]

The Patriots have no doubt been the dominant team of the past few years. But to say that the QB of the most dominant team for four years has to make the HOF is laughable. It's by far Brady's biggest chip for sure; he has no other worthwhile accomplishments.

No other worthwhile accomplishments? Leading the league in TDs wasn't worthwhile? Leading his team to 21 straight wins wasn't even a slightly worthwhile accomplishment? Let that last one sink in. 21 straight wins.

Think about the level that specifically a QB must play to win just one NFL game. Then realize he did it again. And again. And again. And again. Then went into his bye week, and came back and did it again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. Then goes into the playoffs and outplays one of the Co-MVPs of the league. Then beats the other Co-MVP the next game. Then wins a shootout in the Superbowl to win his second Superbowl MVP. Then beats the eventual repeat MVP head to head to start the next season. Then he wins again. Then the #2 pass D in the league gets two weeks to prepare for him and he wins again. And again. Then he beats the team with the best record in the NFC. Then he beats the team with the best record in the AFC. 21 straight wins.

Of course he wasn't the only one on the team winning those games. But he did this with mediocre running backs and with a ragtag group of receivers. And the Pats averaged 24 points a game over that streak. Certainly that's some kind of accomplisment, isn't it?

But to ignore: the Patriots having one of the best defenses in recent memory; the Patriots having one of the greatest coaching staffs of all time; the Patriots having an extremely clutch field goal kicker, is silly. If Adam Vinatieri misses the FG in the snow against the Raiders, they lose. Does that make Brady any better or worse of a QB? Of course not. But some feel that Bradier is holier than thou, has a magic gift that makes everyone around him better, and could not under any circumstances lose a big game. None of that is true, and he's merely been one of the best cogs of a great team.

Vinatieri making that kick was amazing. But Brady getting the team in position to make that kick, and to make the game winner in OT, was also amazing. And if that's the only game you can point to where Brady didn't somehow win the game for his team, out of nine playoff games, you have to give him some credit, no?

For what it's worth, I think last year's Patriots team had the most impressive post-season of any team I've ever seen. By none. Brady was excellent, but to put a QB into the HOF after four years is really 

What about Gale Sayers, who had four complete seasons and only two 1000 yard seasons?

A question for all the Brady backers: Was he the best QB each of the last four years? Was he a top three QB for each of the last four years? If he's only in your top three for the last two years (the way I see it), then he's far, far away from the HOF.

Who do you think was better over the last four years?

Let him at least reach 30,000 yards please.

Like Vinny Testaverde?

21 straight wins IS amazing. I guess I just don't give QBs as much credit as others do when it comes to team success. Jay Fiedler went 10-4, 11-5, 7-3 and 8-4 with Miami from 2000-2003. That's a total of 36-16. Manning has gone 34-14 the last three years. Mark Brunell went 8-5, 9-3, 13-2 from 1997-1999, for a total of 30-10. Brady has gone 48-15 in his career.

Trent Dilfer won his last five games for the Bucs in 1999 (no playoffs), 13 straight games for the Ravens (including playoffs), and four straight starts for the Seahawks in 2001. That means Dilfer won 22 straight games with three different teams. Suffice it to say, I don't think many would argue that winning 22 straight with three different teams is LESS impressive than winning 21 straight with the same team.

Medicore QBs can post very good records and mediocre QBs can have impressive winning streaks. Ben Roethlisberger went 14-0 this year. Brady has only had one impressive statistical feat, leading the league in TDs in 2002.

For my money, Brady was no different than Trent Dilfer in 2001, and Trent Green in 2002. The last two years Brady has posted impressive stats AND Super Bowl victories. But two HOF years are not enough.

Dilfer's winning streak IS impressive. But we've also got a body of work that suggests it's not enough to win Superbowls. Fiedler's winning percentage IS impressive. But it isn't as good as Brady's, he didn't take the team deep into the playoffs, and he had Ricky Williams behind him for much of that streak. Roethlisberger's streak IS impressive. If he did that for three more years, won three Superbowls and then died, I'd probably call him a Hall of Famer too. Why does the fact that other QBs have done less impressive things mean anything less about what Brady has done?

 

[bostonfred]

What's the highest Brady has ever finished in the MVP voting? (Serious question, not being sarcastic).

This year no one was close to Manning, but has Brady ever garnered MVP votes? I know Vick got the lone non-Manning vote this year.

The year Peyton and Steve McNair won it, he was 3rd in MVP voting I believe behind those two.

As a side note, Brady's Patriots were 1-1 against McNair's Titans, and 2-0 against Manning's Colts that year.

 

[David Yudkin]

With Warner hurt in 2002, the Rams scoring dropped by 187 points.  Clearly, without a healthy Warner, they were never the same (and the rest of the offense was close to intact).

In 2001, the Rams had quality players at WR3 and WR4, which are required in that offense. In 2002, those players were gone.Injury or no, these numbers with the same offense during the same year are what killed Warner's reputation:

Marc Bulger 7 games, 1826 yards, 14 TDs, 6 INTs

Kurt Warner 7 games, 1431 yards, 3 TDs, 11 INTs

The fact that Bulger has continued to do well in that offense suggests that Warner was in the right place at the right time. (not so with the guy Brady replaced, and what he did with the same team)

Also, as dominant as Warner was during his 2.5 healthy seasons, he won one Superbowl and had Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, and the best running back in the league. (not so with Brady, who won Superbowls with guys like Antowain Smith and Kevin Faulk at RB, and castoff David Patten and promoted WR3 Troy Brown as their starting WRs)

Just because Warner was relatively dominant for a short period of time, doesn't mean this is the same situation.

I guess we have to determine what "doing well" means.In 1999-2001 (3 years): 40-10 with Warner, 33 ppg, 3 post seasons, 2 SB appearances.

2002-2004 (3 years), 27-23, 22 ppg, 2 post seasons, 0 SB appearances.

I'm not suggested that Warner was not part of the problem in 2002 and beyond, only that they never came close to the offensive dominance they had when he was healthy. The only personnel difference was Az-Hakim (who only had 39-374-3 in 2001). Proehl was still around for 2002 and posted similar stats to 2001.

 

[bostonfred]

With Warner hurt in 2002, the Rams scoring dropped by 187 points.  Clearly, without a healthy Warner, they were never the same (and the rest of the offense was close to intact).

In 2001, the Rams had quality players at WR3 and WR4, which are required in that offense. In 2002, those players were gone.Injury or no, these numbers with the same offense during the same year are what killed Warner's reputation:

Marc Bulger 7 games, 1826 yards, 14 TDs, 6 INTs

Kurt Warner 7 games, 1431 yards, 3 TDs, 11 INTs

The fact that Bulger has continued to do well in that offense suggests that Warner was in the right place at the right time. (not so with the guy Brady replaced, and what he did with the same team)

Also, as dominant as Warner was during his 2.5 healthy seasons, he won one Superbowl and had Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, and the best running back in the league. (not so with Brady, who won Superbowls with guys like Antowain Smith and Kevin Faulk at RB, and castoff David Patten and promoted WR3 Troy Brown as their starting WRs)

Just because Warner was relatively dominant for a short period of time, doesn't mean this is the same situation.

I guess we have to determine what "doing well" means.In 1999-2001 (3 years): 40-10 with Warner, 33 ppg, 3 post seasons, 2 SB appearances.

2002-2004 (3 years), 27-23, 22 ppg, 2 post seasons, 0 SB appearances.

I'm not suggested that Warner was not part of the problem in 2002 and beyond, only that they never came close to the offensive dominance they had when he was healthy. The only personnel difference was Az-Hakim (who only had 39-374-3 in 2001). Proehl was still around for 2002 and posted similar stats to 2001.

Good point about Proehl. But also, Marshall Faulk had by far his worst year, rushing for 953 yards in 14 games, and had 230 fewer yards receiving than the year before. Also, in 2002, more teams were trying to adopt the St. Louis offense, so maybe that took some of the shine off.

Again, fewer years of dominance, with lots more talent around him. Not the same as Brady.

 

[bostonfred]

If Brady retires tomorrow, he does not make the HOF period. Are there any Pat fans here that can agree with that? Ridiculous.

You're welcome to join the conversation if you think you're able to add value.

 

[David Yudkin]

What's the highest Brady has ever finished in the MVP voting? (Serious question, not being sarcastic).

This year no one was close to Manning, but has Brady ever garnered MVP votes? I know Vick got the lone non-Manning vote this year.

The year Peyton and Steve McNair won it, he was 3rd in MVP voting I believe behind those two.

As a side note, Brady's Patriots were 1-1 against McNair's Titans, and 2-0 against Manning's Colts that year.

Pats beat Titans 38-30 in the regular season and 17-14 in the playoffs.Pats beat the Colts 38-34 in the regular season and 24-14 in the playoffs.

 

[bostonfred]

What's the highest Brady has ever finished in the MVP voting? (Serious question, not being sarcastic).

This year no one was close to Manning, but has Brady ever garnered MVP votes? I know Vick got the lone non-Manning vote this year.

The year Peyton and Steve McNair won it, he was 3rd in MVP voting I believe behind those two.

As a side note, Brady's Patriots were 1-1 against McNair's Titans, and 2-0 against Manning's Colts that year.

Pats beat Titans 38-30 in the regular season and 17-14 in the playoffs.Pats beat the Colts 38-34 in the regular season and 24-14 in the playoffs.

That's right. I was thinking of 2002. So Brady's Pats played the co-MVPs four times and won all four, including two regular season duels (where both teams scored 30+), a below zero game vs. the Titans, and an AFC championship game smothering of the red hot Peyton Manning.

 

[radballs.]

If Brady retires tomorrow, he does not make the HOF period.  Are there any Pat fans here that can agree with that?  Ridiculous. 

You're welcome to join the conversation if you think you're able to add value.

Bottom line is he hasn't played long enough and doesn't have the career passing totals yet to warrant consideration.

 

[bostonfred]

If Brady retires tomorrow, he does not make the HOF period.  Are there any Pat fans here that can agree with that?  Ridiculous.  

You're welcome to join the conversation if you think you're able to add value.

Bottom line is he hasn't played long enough and doesn't have the career passing totals yet to warrant consideration.

If a running back had 4956 yards and 39 TDs in 68 career games without winning a Superbowl, would they have played long enough or have enough career rushing yards to warrant consideration?

 

[David Yudkin]

If Brady retires tomorrow, he does not make the HOF period.  Are there any Pat fans here that can agree with that?  Ridiculous.  

You're welcome to join the conversation if you think you're able to add value.

Bottom line is he hasn't played long enough and doesn't have the career passing totals yet to warrant consideration.

If a running back had 4956 yards and 39 TDs in 68 career games without winning a Superbowl, would they have played long enough or have enough career rushing yards to warrant consideration?

I'm sure we could come up with a decent list of guys that should never have been elected in the first place . . .

 

[bostonfred]

If Brady retires tomorrow, he does not make the HOF period.  Are there any Pat fans here that can agree with that?  Ridiculous.  

You're welcome to join the conversation if you think you're able to add value.

Bottom line is he hasn't played long enough and doesn't have the career passing totals yet to warrant consideration.

If a running back had 4956 yards and 39 TDs in 68 career games without winning a Superbowl, would they have played long enough or have enough career rushing yards to warrant consideration?

I'm sure we could come up with a decent list of guys that should never have been elected in the first place . . .

I've shown that there are cases where longevity and statistics are not the only factors in getting in. Saying that Gale Sayers shouldn't be in is really a side issue at this point.

 

[jwvdcw]

And he was the dominant force that got his team to the two Super Bowls he won, where as Brady was the 2nd most important reason his team got there and won them.

This couldn't be farther from the truth. TD joined a pretty good Denver team. Brady took over for an 0-2 team that was a double digit home underdog in week 3. They were coming off a 6-10 season, and many predicted them to be the worst team in the league. The pats were absolutely horrible before Brady. Brady was clearly the biggest reason for their turnaround, as after he took over, they won that game where they were double digit underdogs and went on the win the super bowl.

 

[jwvdcw]

How many QB's that have won 3 SB's and been SB MVP twice not made it to the HOF?

Troy Aikman won 3 SB and a SB MVP and didn't make it in this year--he wasn't even one of the 15 finalists. Aikman was a 6-time Pro Bowler and never really posted gaudy numbers. Aikman has been debated many times and the majority think he will get in and is close to a lock.As for your theoretical question, there have not been many other players that fit the profile, with the closest (although not apples to apples) being Kurt Warner. He was a two-time league MVP (higher on the food chain than SB MVP) and won a Super Bowl MVP. He only won 1 title but went to the SB twice (losing to Brady's Pats). And very few people are tooting Warner's horn for the HOF.

Warner also had 2 possible future HOF WRs and one of the best RBs ever to help him out. Brady has had AT BEST an average supporting offensive cast. Also, 3 super bowl wins is significantly more than 1, and the 9-0 and 8-0 records in playoff and OT games are also key.Edited to add: Also, its worth noting that Warner has played much worse since those years, and actually lost his starting job twice! Had he simply suffered a career ending injury after all of his success, then he may indeed have gotten in.

 

[jwvdcw]

For those who say he's in should he hypothetically be done after 4 years, I would be interested in hearing a discussion of whether Terrell Davis should similarly be in then.  Played a partial 1995 season and then 3 full years.  2 Super Bowls.  In those 3 years he was 1st, 2nd or 3rd in every major category (rushes, rushing yards, rushing TDs, yards from scrimmage, rush/receiving TDs).

And he was the dominant force that got his team to the two Super Bowls he won, where as Brady was the 2nd most important reason his team got there and won them.   Only thing I see in Brady's favor in the comparison is that he has 3 Super Bowls, TD has 2.

RB's and QB's = Apples and Oranges.Fair or not QB's get more credit for W's & L's than RB's do.

3 SB wins in 4 years and he lead the league in TD passes the 1 year he didn't win the SB.

2 SB MVP's, 9-0 in playoffs, 8-0 in overtime.

Longest winning streak in league history.

So if the Steelers had broken the streak record, winning the Super Bowl and perhaps winning some more games to start next season, would Big Ben merit HOF consideration already even if his passing stats were average to slightly above average? Was Big Ben the reason the Steelers went 15-1?

But they didn't win the SB. Big Ben choked in the playoffs and lost...something Brady has never ever done. That is what is so impressive about Brady- he has always won. And, yes, if Big Ben had won the SB, then I would say that he is 3-4 years of doing the same thing away from being a HOFer.

 

[jwvdcw]

For those who say he's in should he hypothetically be done after 4 years, I would be interested in hearing a discussion of whether Terrell Davis should similarly be in then.  Played a partial 1995 season and then 3 full years.  2 Super Bowls.  In those 3 years he was 1st, 2nd or 3rd in every major category (rushes, rushing yards, rushing TDs, yards from scrimmage, rush/receiving TDs).

And he was the dominant force that got his team to the two Super Bowls he won, where as Brady was the 2nd most important reason his team got there and won them.  Only thing I see in Brady's favor in the comparison is that he has 3 Super Bowls, TD has 2.

RB's and QB's = Apples and Oranges.Fair or not QB's get more credit for W's & L's than RB's do.

3 SB wins in 4 years and he lead the league in TD passes the 1 year he didn't win the SB.

2 SB MVP's, 9-0 in playoffs, 8-0 in overtime.

Longest winning streak in league history.

Great. How about answering the question though? They are apples and oranges to you, but that doesn't mean you can't address whether Terrell's arguably being the best player at position, and being the key factor in two SB victories, makes his accompishments Hall worthy when you're saying a QB's are when he has 3 SB victories, wasn't amongst the top 3 at his position in any year he's played, and was the second most important (or third even when they had Dillon) reason they won.

Since you keep saying that, I'll bite and ask...Who are you referring to as the #1 reason for the Pats success? Is it Coach Bellicheck(who has a losing career record without Brady? Is it the defense that was coming of a 6-10 season and was 0-2 before Brady took over and who have given up 21, 29, and 17 points in their championship wins? Is it Adam Vinateri? Who?

 

[jwvdcw]

For those who say he's in should he hypothetically be done after 4 years, I would be interested in hearing a discussion of whether Terrell Davis should similarly be in then.  Played a partial 1995 season and then 3 full years.  2 Super Bowls.  In those 3 years he was 1st, 2nd or 3rd in every major category (rushes, rushing yards, rushing TDs, yards from scrimmage, rush/receiving TDs).

And he was the dominant force that got his team to the two Super Bowls he won, where as Brady was the 2nd most important reason his team got there and won them.   Only thing I see in Brady's favor in the comparison is that he has 3 Super Bowls, TD has 2.

RB's and QB's = Apples and Oranges.Fair or not QB's get more credit for W's & L's than RB's do.

3 SB wins in 4 years and he lead the league in TD passes the 1 year he didn't win the SB.

2 SB MVP's, 9-0 in playoffs, 8-0 in overtime.

Longest winning streak in league history.

So if the Steelers had broken the streak record, winning the Super Bowl and perhaps winning some more games to start next season, would Big Ben merit HOF consideration already even if his passing stats were average to slightly above average? Was Big Ben the reason the Steelers went 15-1?

Well Bens playoff record is already 1-1 but if he wins the next 8 or 9 and then 3 SB's and 2 SB mvps then yeah maybe.

Exactly. The fact that the closest comparison you can make to Brady's current accomplishments is Roethlisberger, and he's already lost his chance to match one of Brady's most notable accomplishments (undefeated in the playoffs) tells you how dominant Brady has been. What T.D. did was rare. What Brady has done is unprecedented.

In a four year stretch, Davis helped his team to 47 regular season wins and a 7-1 postseason record. The Boncos made the playoffs three times, and T.D. helped them win two Superbowls, while leading the league in TDs twice, and leading the league in rushing once. In Brady's four year stretch, he's led his team to 48 regular season wins and a 9-0 postseason record, while winning three Superbowls and leading the league in TDs during the other.

There's only been a handful of running backs who have topped 2000 yards, and Davis is one of them. Brady orchestrated a 21 game win streak, the longest in NFL history. Nobody's ever done that before.

Davis he will always be loved by Denver fans for helping a hall of fame quarterback get two Superbowl rings and go out on top. Brady did it without any sure hall of famer players alongside him.

Many people say Davis is close, but won't make the Hall of Fame. What Brady's done is a little better. It's entirely consistent for Brady to just barely make it with Davis just barely missing it.

great posting.

 

[jwvdcw]

I think a true HOF'er would make a difference on any team they played on. I think Brady is the product of the system in NE and would not have the same impact on a different team.

I couldn't disagree more. I think that Brady and Montana could flourish in any system, but just because they weren't flashy guys like Marino and Peyton get more publicity. Brady would make any team in the league instantly be the best clutch team in the league. Brady would provide instant leadership to any team. Brady would manage a game better than any QB in the league...he can open it up and throw for 300 yards when necessary or he can sit back and let his rushing game eat up the clock. Brady, imo, really has no weakness. Joe Montana imo is the perfect QB- he had it all. I realize that its way early to say this, but I see Brady in a similar light.

 

[jwvdcw]

Peyton Manning has more than TWICE as many passing yards and TWICE as many passing touchdowns in less than twice as many career games. I'm not so sure Manning is a lock if he never plays another game, so I have a hard time putting Brady even close to that. Brady's career statistics don't compare favorably to even the worst QBs in the HOF.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=116454I'd rather have a QB that only throws for 2000 yards per season but can change one of the worst teams in the league into one of the greatest teams in NFL history over a QB that throws for a lot of yards.

 

[jwvdcw]

Herm Edwards on Brady (remember he plays against the guy two times a year)

"New York Jets coach Herman Edwards says he's confused over the apparent lack of understanding about what the Patriots have at quarterback in Tom Brady.

"You know going into a game that there is not a lot of room for error," Edwards said. "The key is, their quarterback is a very underrated quarterback in my estimation. The guy is the best quarterback in the playoffs.

"When he has to make a throw, he makes the throw. They've got a quarterback who's going to the Hall of Fame and a coach who's going to the Hall. They've got the best quarterback in the playoffs. Just watch him. They play in a close game, they don't flinch. They know in their minds if they play 10 games close, they'll win nine.

"As an opponent, late in the game, you know Brady is going to make the play so you better make one. He has a calmness about himself. The game is always at one speed for him. First quarter. Fourth quarter. He doesn't panic. He waits and he waits and eventually he's going to get you."

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/arti...g_stage?mode=PF

I think Brady will one day make the HOF. But he's not there yet.I don't think Brady's been the best QB in the league the past four years. Even if he was, I don't think that's enough to put him in the HOF. HOFs are supposed to be the best for many years.

I guess we have a different definition of success then. Imo, Brady's past four years is as good as any four years of any player in NFL history. He has taken a crap team and made them into a dynasty. I could care less about stats. He wins. He comes through in the clutch. You love to quote stats all day long, but you know in your heart, that if you had to pick a QB to win a big game for you, then you'd take Brady all day long.

 

[jwvdcw]

I wasn't aware it was called the Hall of Regular Season Accomplishments. If it were, I agree, Brady will probably never receive the prestigious "Manning Award".

But the Hall of Fame is about the dominant layers of their era. Nobody has ever been as dominant as Brady's Patriots. Never. Yes, other players have had more yards and TDs, but he's been the driving force on a team with no other sure hall of famer players that many will call a dynasty.

Then why are people saying "no" to Davis? The Broncos were 7-1 in the postseason with Terrell (winning the last 7 games). Back-to-back Super Bowl wins. SB MVP. NFL MVP. Almost 160 yards of offense and 1.5 TD per post season game.I'm not pushing for Davis to get in, as I don't think he played long enough (as I think of other players as well). But why is there limited love for an injured Davis getting a mulligan for his knee issues?

Did you not see the post just about 10 above this one? I'll restate it...TD has a case for the HOF, but many think he is just out. Brady is slightly better(3 SBs to 2, 2SB MVPs to 1, undefeated in teh playoffs to one loss, undefeated in OT, took over for a worse team, etc.

Therefore, he gets in, while TD just misses out.

 

[jwvdcw]

That's where we agree to disagree. THREE SUPER BOWLS, not one. And he was MVP of two of them. Chase, honestly I think you're letting your Jets fanboy blinders cloud your judgment here. QBs are recognized first and foremost for whether they win the big one (which is why Montana is on everyone's short list for best QB ever while Marino, despite his statistical accomplishments has plenty of detractors), and Brady has done it not once, not twice, but three times.

Tom Brady could play his way OUT of the HOF over the next leg of his career, but if he didn't play another down, he would get in without any worry.

I wasn't aware it was called the Hall of Regular Season Accomplishments.  If it were, I agree, Brady will probably never receive the prestigious "Manning Award". 

But the Hall of Fame is about the dominant layers of their era.  Nobody has ever been as dominant as Brady's Patriots.  Never.  Yes, other players have had more yards and TDs, but he's been the driving force on a team with no other sure hall of famer players that many will call a dynasty.

The Patriots have no doubt been the dominant team of the past few years. But to say that the QB of the most dominant team for four years has to make the HOF is laughable. It's by far Brady's biggest chip for sure; he has no other worthwhile accomplishments.But to ignore: the Patriots having one of the best defenses in recent memory; the Patriots having one of the greatest coaching staffs of all time; the Patriots having an extremely clutch field goal kicker, is silly. If Adam Vinatieri misses the FG in the snow against the Raiders, they lose. Does that make Brady any better or worse of a QB? Of course not. But some feel that Bradier is holier than thou, has a magic gift that makes everyone around him better, and could not under any circumstances lose a big game. None of that is true, and he's merely been one of the best cogs of a great team.

For what it's worth, I think last year's Patriots team had the most impressive post-season of any team I've ever seen. By none. Brady was excellent, but to put a QB into the HOF after four years is really

A question for all the Brady backers: Was he the best QB each of the last four years? Was he a top three QB for each of the last four years? If he's only in your top three for the last two years (the way I see it), then he's far, far away from the HOF.

Let him at least reach 30,000 yards please.

As I said, not only do I think brady was the best QB of hte past 4 years, I think he may have just had teh greatest 4 year stretch in NFL history. This was from another thread...Think about it:

Sadly, I can no longer find it, but I stumbled on a funny link after the 2001 season. I was searching for some info on Drew Bledsoe's injury, and found an article on a sports site from after week two of the season. At the time, the Pats were 0-2 and had just lost Bledsoe long-term. The article included a quote along the lines of "In this unpredictable 2001 season, the only thing we can say for sure is that the New England Patriots will be drafting first overall in April."

Think about the turnaround that Brady made...worst team in the league to possibly best team of all time. Another absolutely amazing stat that I saw once, was Brady's overtime numbers. They are insane! Something like 28-32 with 0 INTs...absoultely unreal.

 

[jwvdcw]

Since this is my thread and I work here, I'm going off on another tangent. This time for Kurt Warner.

In the 1999-2001 time frame, Warner averaged 293 passing yards and 2.3 passing TD per game. That's 4688/36 for a 16-game season.

With Warner at QB, the Rams went 40-10 (.800) and won one and lost one Super Bowl. He won 2 LEAGUE MVP awards and a SB MVP.

The offense was second to none, scoring 526, 540, and 503 points. That's an average of almost 33 points per game over a 3-year stretch. There have only been 9 teams to score 500+ points, and no other team has done it more than once while the Rams did 3 consecutive years.

They outscoed the #2 team in points by 83, 55, and 90 points respectively. The Rams in that stretch were the greatest offensive machine in NFL history.

With Warner hurt in 2002, the Rams scoring dropped by 187 points. Clearly, without a healthy Warner, they were never the same (and the rest of the offense was close to intact).

If Brady has posted some unprecidented things on his resume, certainly Warner has as well. But no one gives Warner the time of day for HOF consideration.

If Brady can make a case as a HOF lock over a few seasons, why can't Warner? If Brady can post marginal stats for a few more years and still be a lock, why couldn't Warner post 3 more marginal years and get in, as no one seems to even use "Warner" and "HOF" in the same sentence.

As I said, I think Warner had a damn good case for the HOF if he had a career ending injury. But the fact that he was playing with such great offensive talent always made you wonder. And the fact that he has lost his starting job twice has taken his HOF status away from him imo. Similarly, if Brady loses the starting job to Rohan Davey(you may laugh at this, but Bulger was just as unknown at one point) and then joins another team and loses his job to a rookie, then I'll change my stance.

 

[jwvdcw]

For my money, Brady was no different than Trent Dilfer in 2001, and Trent Green in 2002. The last two years Brady has posted impressive stats AND Super Bowl victories. But two HOF years are not enough.

Are you not watching the games at all? Seriously, sometimes I think that people here just don't watch teh games at all and just read the box scores. Stats are so misleading imo. Dilfer was the same as Brady? Come on! In Baltimore's championship, their defense shut out the opponent, while their special teams scored 7 points. In the AFC Championship, they held the Raiders to 3 points. Against the Titans, the Ravens special teams/defense scored more than they let up! Brady, meanwhile, has led game winning drives in each of his first two super bowls. He has also led many great late game winning drives such as the one versus Oakland. He has thrown for 300+ yards in the SB. He has been flawless in OT. HE HAS DONE ABSOLUTELY WHATEVER HAS BEEN NECESSARY FOR HIS TEAM TO WIN. He has thrown for a ton when needed. He has protected the ball when his team has the lead. He is the closest thing to a flawless player other than Joe Montana that I've ever seen.

 

[GregR_2]

12 posts in a row!? I swear you have the biggest case of man-love for a football player I've ever seen.

 

[GregR_2]

Great. How about answering the question though? They are apples and oranges to you, but that doesn't mean you can't address whether Terrell's arguably being the best player at position, and being the key factor in two SB victories, makes his accompishments Hall worthy when you're saying a QB's are when he has 3 SB victories, wasn't amongst the top 3 at his position in any year he's played, and was the second most important (or third even when they had Dillon) reason they won.

Since you keep saying that, I'll bite and ask...Who are you referring to as the #1 reason for the Pats success? Is it Coach Bellicheck(who has a losing career record without Brady? Is it the defense that was coming of a 6-10 season and was 0-2 before Brady took over and who have given up 21, 29, and 17 points in their championship wins? Is it Adam Vinateri? Who?

Jesus, how thick can you be that you need me to tell you it's the defense?In 2001, both the offense and defense were pretty crappy and the Pats were lucky to get to the the super bowl, let alone win it. Though you love to credit Brady for the whole win, the Pats scored 17 of their 20 points off turnovers, including 10 of them directly coming from the defense (int for a TD, and a fumble recovery already within FG range that the offense couldn't score on leading to the FG).

2002... the Pats were pretty bad both on offense and defense. Brady threw a lot of TDs since they had no RB who could punch it in, but had a horrible yards per attempt.

In 2003, the offense (yes, the Tom Brady led offense) was below average, ranking 18th in the league. The defense was ranked 7th.

In 2004, the only dominant year the Pats had, the offense and defense contributed equally (7th overall for offense, 9th for defense). However, the rushing attack was the more potent part of the Pats offense. So not only wasn't Brady the biggest ingredient to success, he probably wasn't even the 2nd biggest reason in 2004.

Yes, Brady is a fine NFL QB, and definitely in the top 5 or 6. Yes, there is a synergy with a smart defense like the Pats have, and a QB who doesn't turn it over a lot. But still, you continue to give him all credit for every bit of Patriots success, despite the team having relied heavily on their defense for their success. As has been said (even by YOU) in other Brady threads, he seldom was called on to go out and win the game for the Pats. His job was to not make mistakes and let the defense win it. In those times he's been called on, he has indeed gotten it done. But that doesn't mean you can rob the defense of the credit they deserve.

 

[Jason Wood]

No offense Chase (and other Brady detractors) but arguing this is the same as arguing whether the sky is blue. You may vehemently disagree, but to debate this further is futile in my opinion because it's simply FACT. Now obviously Brady IS going to play more snaps in his career, so there will never be a resolution to this debate, so I'm going to bow out politely and just say that you "don't get it."

 

[David Yudkin]

Peyton Manning has more than TWICE as many passing yards and TWICE as many passing touchdowns in less than twice as many career games. I'm not so sure Manning is a lock if he never plays another game, so I have a hard time putting Brady even close to that. Brady's career statistics don't compare favorably to even the worst QBs in the HOF.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=116454I'd rather have a QB that only throws for 2000 yards per season but can change one of the worst teams in the league into one of the greatest teams in NFL history over a QB that throws for a lot of yards.

In Belichick's first season, they fell to 5-11 (and there were 7 teams with the same or fewer wins). This coming off of years where they were 8-8, 9-7. 10-6. and 11-5 with a Super Bowl appearance. They were far from being the worst team in the league . . .

 

[djcolts]

I'm a Colts fan - and I'm frustrated that Brady is the "2nd coming", and Manning is a "choker" - however I've seen enough to say that Brady's accomplishments so far would put him in the HOF if he doesn't play another down. The only way he doesn't make it is if he plays several years of below-average QB-play like Warner. I don't see that happening. He's the best manager of a game in the last 15 years - and his pocket awareness and presence is the best in the game, also. He also has a 7-0 OT record (yes, there's some fortune there - but he has to be successful, too).

 

[Gargoylez]

Not even a question, a 2 time superbowl MVP guarentees his spot in canton. Anyone who says otherwise is just fooling themselves and/or is a brady hater. The HOF is based on two things really... Continued great play OR SUPERBOWLS. 3 time superbowl winning quarterback and 2 time MVP?

Stop with the crazy talk.

first ballot HOFer, and I don't even like brady that much.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

Great.  How about answering the question though?  They are apples and oranges to you, but that doesn't mean you can't address whether Terrell's arguably being the best player at position, and being the key factor in two SB victories, makes his accompishments Hall worthy when you're saying a QB's are when he has 3 SB victories, wasn't amongst the top 3 at his position in any year he's played, and was the second most important (or third even when they had Dillon) reason they won.

Since you keep saying that, I'll bite and ask...Who are you referring to as the #1 reason for the Pats success? Is it Coach Bellicheck(who has a losing career record without Brady? Is it the defense that was coming of a 6-10 season and was 0-2 before Brady took over and who have given up 21, 29, and 17 points in their championship wins? Is it Adam Vinateri? Who?

Jesus, how thick can you be that you need me to tell you it's the defense?In 2001, both the offense and defense were pretty crappy and the Pats were lucky to get to the the super bowl, let alone win it. Though you love to credit Brady for the whole win, the Pats scored 17 of their 20 points off turnovers, including 10 of them directly coming from the defense (int for a TD, and a fumble recovery already within FG range that the offense couldn't score on leading to the FG).

2002... the Pats were pretty bad both on offense and defense. Brady threw a lot of TDs since they had no RB who could punch it in, but had a horrible yards per attempt.

In 2003, the offense (yes, the Tom Brady led offense) was below average, ranking 18th in the league. The defense was ranked 7th.

In 2004, the only dominant year the Pats had, the offense and defense contributed equally (7th overall for offense, 9th for defense). However, the rushing attack was the more potent part of the Pats offense. So not only wasn't Brady the biggest ingredient to success, he probably wasn't even the 2nd biggest reason in 2004.

Yes, Brady is a fine NFL QB, and definitely in the top 5 or 6. Yes, there is a synergy with a smart defense like the Pats have, and a QB who doesn't turn it over a lot. But still, you continue to give him all credit for every bit of Patriots success, despite the team having relied heavily on their defense for their success. As has been said (even by YOU) in other Brady threads, he seldom was called on to go out and win the game for the Pats. His job was to not make mistakes and let the defense win it. In those times he's been called on, he has indeed gotten it done. But that doesn't mean you can rob the defense of the credit they deserve.

It's not that some credit Brady for ALL of NE's success it's just that some recognize how important he is to their success. Of course NE's Def and their coaching have been critical to their success but IMO Brady is the most critical component (BB would be close 2nd).2001 - Take a look at NE's record the previous 25 games with largely the same team and coaching staff.

2002 - Yeah it was a down year but Brady still lead the league in TD passes.

2003 - It wasn't defense that won that SB.

2004 - AFCC - 2 td's, 0 Int's and 130 qb rating plaing on the road (with flu?) vs the #1 scoring def in the league. SB - 2 tds, 0 Ints and a 110 qb rating vs the #3 scoring defense in the league.

With Brady it is not any one thing or 1 number you can point to that proves he is a great QB. But when you look at all the little things, game after game and all the big things, championship after championship you begin to realize he is one heckuva a QB. He almost always seems to do the right thing at the right time and all he does is win. What more could you ask for out of a HOF QB?

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Since getting into the HOF is done by voting and people can be influenced by things, I think it depends on why he would stop today.For example........if he retired on his own. If he said, I'm done....I don't need to play anymore, I don't have that desire. I say NO, he doesn't get in. I think people would have in the back of his mind he didn't play long enough and that him retiring at such an early age people would look negatively on that.However, if he was in a plane crash. People would look at what he has done compared to others in such a short span, also think in their head what he MIGHT have done if not for such an unfortunate accident and he'd be looked on positively and he would get in.It is definately more than just numbers or rings. If you think Tom Brady this week said.........."Guys, I'm done. I'm joining Ricky Williams in Jamaica and we're going to smoke pot for the next for years." He would not get into the Hall.

 

[Jason Wood]

Since getting into the HOF is done by voting and people can be influenced by things, I think it depends on why he would stop today.

For example........if he retired on his own. If he said, I'm done....I don't need to play anymore, I don't have that desire. I say NO, he doesn't get in. I think people would have in the back of his mind he didn't play long enough and that him retiring at such an early age people would look negatively on that.

However, if he was in a plane crash. People would look at what he has done compared to others in such a short span, also think in their head what he MIGHT have done if not for such an unfortunate accident and he'd be looked on positively and he would get in.

It is definately more than just numbers or rings. If you think Tom Brady this week said.........."Guys, I'm done. I'm joining Ricky Williams in Jamaica and we're going to smoke pot for the next for years."

He would not get into the Hall.

Hey Iwanna,I agree with you here. My definitive "he's in" assumes that he never plays another down due to injury or illness (or untimely demise). I agree that if he simply said, "i've had enough" the circumstances of his induction would be much less certain.

 

[bostonfred]

In 2001, both the offense and defense were pretty crappy and the Pats were lucky to get to the the super bowl, let alone win it.

An 0-2 team coming off a 5-11 record that has a huge excuse to go out there and lose after losing its franchise quarterback to injury, replaces him with Tom Brady and goes 14-3 for the rest of the regular- and post-season. Who cares if he didn't put up 5000 pass yards and 50 TDs on hiw way to winning a Superbowl? Maybe your definition of crappy is too based on statistics to describe the bend-but-don't-break defense or the nuance of a conservative pass oriented offense.

2002... the Pats were pretty bad both on offense and defense. Brady threw a lot of TDs since they had no RB who could punch it in, but had a horrible yards per attempt.

A horrible yards per attempt? They were throwing screens every other play because they didn't have any talent around him. People were marvelling about Brady's ability to convert quick slants because he wasn't getting any time from his offensive line, and to convert plays like the double screen when people knew it was coming.

In 2003, the offense (yes, the Tom Brady led offense) was below average, ranking 18th in the league. The defense was ranked 7th.

Pay no mind to the fact that his #1 WR, who had caught 97 passes the previous year, was hurt for most of the season and only caught 40 balls in 2003. Or the fact that his #2 WR, who had 61 catches in 2002, missed ten games and caught only 9 balls all season.

In fact, not one wide receiver survived the whole year because teams were beating the heck out of them. His two starting wide receivers were replaced for much of the season by two second year players, a rookie kick returner who can't run routes, and JJ Stokes.

Pay no mind to the fact that his new starting receivers were a pair of second year receivers

In 2003, the offense (yes, the Antowain Smith Kevin Faulk led offense) had no running game, but still had a 47/53 run/pass ratio despite running at a 3.4 yards per carry clip .

Brady had to carry the offense to make up that difference. I guess he did OK because they won 17 games including a Superbowl. Sorry he didn't throw for enough yards to win your fantasy football Superbowl, too.

In 2004, the only dominant year the Pats had, the offense and defense contributed equally (7th overall for offense, 9th for defense). However, the rushing attack was the more potent part of the Pats offense. So not only wasn't Brady the biggest ingredient to success, he probably wasn't even the 2nd biggest reason in 2004.

The offense did better than the defense, but the defense was the biggest reason.Dillon ran for 1635 yards and 12 TDs, while Brady threw for 3692 and 28 TDs, so Brady wasn't even the biggest reason the offense was successful.

Are you sure you're being objective here? From what I'm seeing, it was a pretty balanced effort.

But let's look at the Montana led 49ers, who in 1984 went 15-1 and won the Superbowl.

Did you know that Montana had fewer yards (3630) and the same number of TDs as Brady? That he got a bigger contribution from his running game (over 2000 yards from a combination including Roger Craig and Wendell Tyler, at a better clip on a yards per carry basis than Dillon gave the Pats)? That the 49ers defense was 4th in the NFL?

Call Canton! Montana's a fraud!

Yes, Brady is a fine NFL QB, and definitely in the top 5 or 6.

Oh, Greg.

He seldom was called on to go out and win the game for the Pats. His job was to not make mistakes and let the defense win it. In those times he's been called on, he has indeed gotten it done. But that doesn't mean you can rob the defense of the credit they deserve.

Do you really believe that Brady doesn't win games on his own?

 

[CalBear]

Not even a question, a 2 time superbowl MVP guarentees his spot in canton. Anyone who says otherwise is just fooling themselves and/or is a brady hater. The HOF is based on two things really... Continued great play OR SUPERBOWLS. 3 time superbowl winning quarterback and 2 time MVP?

Stop with the crazy talk.

first ballot HOFer, and I don't even like brady that much.

Could you please provide some examples of HOF players who got in just on the basis of their performance in Super Bowls?

 

[bostonfred]

Not even a question, a 2 time superbowl MVP guarentees his spot in canton. Anyone who says otherwise is just fooling themselves and/or is a brady hater. The HOF is based on two things really... Continued great play OR SUPERBOWLS. 3 time superbowl winning quarterback and 2 time MVP?

Stop with the crazy talk.

first ballot HOFer, and I don't even like brady that much.

Could you please provide some examples of HOF players who got in just on the basis of their performance in Super Bowls?

Troy Aikman appears poised to be a hall of famer. He will be eligible in 2006, and may go in on his first ballot. Aikman never threw for 3500 yards in a season, while Brady has thrown for more than 3500 in every complete season he has played.

He never threw for more than 23 TDs in a season, while Brady has thrown for 23 or more in every complete season he has played.

Aikman's three Superbowls and one MVP are considered the reason he will make the Hall of Fame, despite the fact that he was arguably just a great fit for the pro set offense. He also had a much better team around him than Brady, with many future first ballot hall of famers.