If Tom Brady wants to be the best Quarterback of all time, he needs to (2 Viewers)

[Raider Nation]

Is there anyone other than Pats fans that think Brady is the best ever?

Let's see...Tied for most Superbowl wins - 4

Most Superbowl appearances - 6

Most Championship Game appearances (9 in 13 years)

Most touchdowns thrown in the Superbowl

Greatest winning percentage of any QB in NFL history

4th quarter tonight - 14 for 16, 139 yards, 2 TD's.

Yeah, I'd say he's pretty good.

the Seahawks had given up 13 points to teams in the 4th qt. OVER THEIR LAST 8 GAMES! Brady surgically leads 2 crucial drives.....

how sweet it is! Best ever.... troll on trollers lol how pathetic

You should go door-to-door around the country and murder everyone who doesn't think Brady is the greatest great who ever greated.

 

[SproutDaddy]

Troll seems to be the most misused word on these boards.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Troll seems to be the most misused word on these boards.

And yet we seem to under-use the word "puppy."

Puppies are good.

 

[Road Warriors]

Troll seems to be the most misused word on these boards.

And yet we seem to under-use the word "puppy."

Puppies are good.

sweater-puppies are fantastic

 

[msommer]

The 'best ever' QB discussion is uninteresting to me.

I am incredibly happy to have seen great QB'ing in this modern era, by Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers (I'm probably leaving someone out).

 

[nxmehta]

Is there anyone other than Pats fans that think Brady is the best ever?

Let's see...Tied for most Superbowl wins - 4

Most Superbowl appearances - 6

Most Championship Game appearances (9 in 13 years)

Most touchdowns thrown in the Superbowl

Greatest winning percentage of any QB in NFL history

4th quarter tonight - 14 for 16, 139 yards, 2 TD's.

Yeah, I'd say he's pretty good.

the Seahawks had given up 13 points to teams in the 4th qt. OVER THEIR LAST 8 GAMES! Brady surgically leads 2 crucial drives.....

how sweet it is! Best ever.... troll on trollers lol how pathetic

You should go door-to-door around the country and murder everyone who doesn't think Brady is the greatest great who ever greated.

It's for quality posts like this that I come to the shark pool!

 

[nobiz]

The Boston losers need to wait until everyone who saw Montana play dies off, then rewrite history like they did about JFK.

 

[Wingnut]

The 'best ever' QB discussion is uninteresting to me.

I am incredibly happy to have seen great QB'ing in this modern era, by Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers (I'm probably leaving someone out).

I'm fortunate to have watched every SB since SB VI (so I'm lucky to be old I guess. Lol). I watched Bradshaw win 4, Montana win 4, and now Brady win 4, as well as all the SBs in between...watching history is pretty cool.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Really people, let Raider Nation have his giggles. He strikes me as someone who doesn't have a lot that brings him joy.

Obviously, he's a Raider fan, first and foremost.

He pulls the "I don't even know you bro" routine, on the internet, and he's not being ironic.

He's also become so conditioned to being alone that his idea of a brag-worthy night is to watch football and porn at the same time (which seems kind of weird, but whatever gets you going bro) and eating miscellaneous pig parts.

I'm sure he has some kind of employment to be able to afford his internet connection and hot dogs, but with 85,000 posts, I'm guessing he's not exactly someone who has a position that is high/demanding enough to take up a lot of his time.

Point being, let him take his shots, let him write * and have a giggle about it. Let him try and make it sound like you're unhappy/bitter/upset, and he's the most contented man on the planet.

Just let him have it.

This one thing.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Even with 4 rings now, I don't think he's quite "the best ever". Probably top 2-3. He's certainly the Most Accomplished though.

It's hard to argue for anyone having a better career than Brady at this point. Is he the "best" QB of all time. It's not outlandish to argue that one either way, but it's probably a better argument to say he's the "greatest" (as you say most accomplished) QB of all time.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Good Lord.

Manning's best football was superior to Brady's best football. Too bad Peyton couldn't play his entire career with Belichick and a great defense.

Peyton is a better passer, Brady is a better QB.

Its a package.

Even as a Jets' fan (so Pats "hater") I've always argued for Brady over Manning. He's the better QB, by almost any standard imo.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Anyone that thinks Manning is better than Brady should be checked into a mental home.

It's humorous how people are so influenced by what they saw most recently. You could have switched the order of those names and made that same statement exactly one year ago.

It has gone from humorous to sad how you just can't enjoy one of the greatest QBs of all time.

And that's Brady not Manning.

Let it go man. You should enjoy it not hate it.

Well, they're both "one of the greatest QBs of all time".

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Troll seems to be the most misused word on these boards.

And yet we seem to under-use the word "puppy."

Puppies are good.

In the 4th Q Tom Brady showed the intestinal fortitude of a puppy facing down a wolf.

 

[Shutout]

To a lot of people, I'd say he just did what he needed to do in order to finish the statement posed in the thread. Even tossing out the cumulative accomplishments, he just put up two crunch time TDs on a defense that hadn't allowed that many points in the entire 2nd half of the season in that spot-against a defense that has flirted with "best ever" talk. To me, that says a lot.

With that being said, I think the best ever...the guy that they said, "the fate of the multiverse depends on you winning this one Super Bowl, who ya got?", I'm going with Joe Cool. Montanna suceeeded EVERY opportunity he had, in any way the opposition tried to draw up. Give me 10 free throws and if I make 6 out of 10, yeah, I'm good I guess. But give me 10 and if I make all ten, that's just a bit more IMO.

 

[cstu]

This game is the most important of his career IMO.

If the Patriots win:

- he did it against the best defense in the league

- no cheating questions, balls will be filled to proper PSI, being watched like a hawk for anything improper.

- playing against another good offense with a clutch QB

Barring a terrible performance in which he's bailed out by his defense to win it, winning this Super Bowl cements as a top 5 QB all-time, erases any questions about his first 3 SB wins, makes a solid argument as the GOAT.

It took tremendous luck to get the win, but he cemented his legacy with those two TD drives.

 

[Boston]

The greatest anything will always be a debate you can never have a concrete winner...I will say this though...I think right now you can say Brady has had the greatest career of anyone...when you combine individual and team accomplishments along with his impeccable leadership qualities for the period of time he has been doing it I don't think anyone matches up with that...and he's still at the top of his game with the potential to add more to his legacy...

 

[Run It Up]

Good Lord.

Manning's best football was superior to Brady's best football. Too bad Peyton couldn't play his entire career with Belichick and a great defense.

Peyton is a better passer, Brady is a better QB.

Its a package.

Even as a Jets' fan (so Pats "hater") I've always argued for Brady over Manning. He's the better QB, by almost any standard imo.

I think Brady is capable of anything Manning has shown, he just doesn't have to. Manning on the other hand plays like the only way to win games is on his back throwing 60 times a game.

 

[Run It Up]

Yeah the argument that 4-0 > 4-2 is one of the dumbest to ever occur in this conversation.

 

[The Westin]

Funny how a Russel Wilson interception cemented Tom Brady's legacy.

I will never forget a thread here in 2010 when people argued the question of "If Pittsburgh beats GB in the Super Bowl, is Big Ben better than Brady?"

Just goes to show how people put to much value in SB wins.

Either way, the argument is pointless. It is impossible to analyze QBs from different eras.

Brady is the best of his era.

Montana is the best of his era.

Why even try to compare Quarterbacks who played at times when rules were completely different?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Yeah the argument that 4-0 > 4-2 is one of the dumbest to ever occur in this conversation.

if only brady could go back in time and put up some montana-like numbers in the first rounds of the 2 losing sb years

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Funny how a Russel Wilson interception cemented Tom Brady's legacy.

I will never forget a thread here in 2010 when people argued the question of "If Pittsburgh beats GB in the Super Bowl, is Big Ben better than Brady?"

Just goes to show how people put to much value in SB wins.

Either way, the argument is pointless. It is impossible to analyze QBs from different eras.

Brady is the best of his era.

Montana is the best of his era.

Why even try to compare Quarterbacks who played at times when rules were completely different?

yeah but if brady doesn't go mental in the 4th q we don't even set wilson up to throw that pick

so much of all this is in your perception

 

[Run It Up]

Funny how a Russel Wilson interception cemented Tom Brady's legacy.

I will never forget a thread here in 2010 when people argued the question of "If Pittsburgh beats GB in the Super Bowl, is Big Ben better than Brady?"

Just goes to show how people put to much value in SB wins.

Either way, the argument is pointless. It is impossible to analyze QBs from different eras.

Brady is the best of his era.

Montana is the best of his era.

Why even try to compare Quarterbacks who played at times when rules were completely different?

When Brady wins his 5th and assembles the infinity gauntlet we can settle this debate.

 

[Shutout]

With that being said, I think the best ever...the guy that they said, "the fate of the multiverse depends on you winning this one Super Bowl, who ya got?", I'm going with Joe Cool. Montanna suceeeded EVERY opportunity he had, in any way the opposition tried to draw up. Give me 10 free throws and if I make 6 out of 10, yeah, I'm good I guess. But give me 10 and if I make all ten, that's just a bit more IMO.

I don't know why people contain the conversation to Super Bowls. The suggestion here is that it's better to lose in the first or second round than get your team to the Super Bowl and lose. Montana lost in the playoffs 7 times. So, no, he's not 4 for 4. He's 4 for 11.

Because the other side of that coin is he went to SO many playoff games and had a lot of success. You have to be really good for a long time to even have the chance to play in and lose 7 playoff games.

But it doesn't have to be the Super Bowl as the caliber. If you grew up in that era or you watched a lot of football during his career you may not have all the numbers in your head (the pro bowls, SB championships, MVPs, highest passer rating 5 years, etc, etc,) but you remember he just NEVER seemed to fail. The Niners won and they won a lot. They were always winning their division, always had gaudy records, were on prime time TV all the time which was more rare then. Montana was part of one of the most notable plays (the catch) of the last 40 years. You just watched him get it done over and over and when the NIners lost, you can probably count on one hand the number of times where you can say "Montana failed to do this or that". He had something like 35 4th quarter comebacks.

In short, it just happens that when you think of him or what people recall of him is almost always him getting it done. ANd that's what being one of the greats is about.

And he did it in an era of great peers. THe QBS of the early 80's is probably the best collective group of a decade and he stood out among them all.

And he did it in an era of ferocious defenders. Today we talk about JJ Watt as being unparalleled and there's not a lot to compare him to. But in Montana's day, when teams still could hit and play., you had Lawrence Taylor, Mike Singletary, Bruce Smith, Reggie White, Charles Haley, Darrell Green, Deion Sanders. Just a list that goes on and on and on of AWESOME defenders you had to play against every week.

 

[Shutout]

Yeah the argument that 4-0 > 4-2 is one of the dumbest to ever occur in this conversation.

It's called math and knowing the objective.

The one and only goal of great teams is to win the championship and while we can nit pick the level of opponents teams had in different eras and how much weight is given to this and that, the facts are, given the opportunity to play in and win a title, Montana NEVER failed. And I say this as a Brady fan. ANd I didn't even particularly like Montana back in the day so this isn't a biased argument for or against a player. Its just simple facts. To be great, you have to do it better than anyone and when you never lose in the Super Bowl you are pretty good. If Brady wins 6 rings before he retires, he's the greatest. Even if he takes 12 cracks at it. It is a fluid thing but as it stands now, 100% success is better than 66% success and we didn't even take into account the different eras.

Pick your horse and lobby for him. We are all right here because it depends on our opinions. I have mine and others have theirs and we aren't swaying any votes here.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

With that being said, I think the best ever...the guy that they said, "the fate of the multiverse depends on you winning this one Super Bowl, who ya got?", I'm going with Joe Cool. Montanna suceeeded EVERY opportunity he had, in any way the opposition tried to draw up. Give me 10 free throws and if I make 6 out of 10, yeah, I'm good I guess. But give me 10 and if I make all ten, that's just a bit more IMO.

I don't know why people contain the conversation to Super Bowls. The suggestion here is that it's better to lose in the first or second round than get your team to the Super Bowl and lose. Montana lost in the playoffs 7 times. So, no, he's not 4 for 4. He's 4 for 11.

Because the other side of that coin is he went to SO many playoff games and had a lot of success. You have to be really good for a long time to even have the chance to play in and lose 7 playoff games.

But it doesn't have to be the Super Bowl as the caliber. If you grew up in that era or you watched a lot of football during his career you may not have all the numbers in your head (the pro bowls, SB championships, MVPs, highest passer rating 5 years, etc, etc,) but you remember he just NEVER seemed to fail. The Niners won and they won a lot. They were always winning their division, always had gaudy records, were on prime time TV all the time which was more rare then. Montana was part of one of the most notable plays (the catch) of the last 40 years. You just watched him get it done over and over and when the NIners lost, you can probably count on one hand the number of times where you can say "Montana failed to do this or that". He had something like 35 4th quarter comebacks.

In short, it just happens that when you think of him or what people recall of him is almost always him getting it done. ANd that's what being one of the greats is about.

And he did it in an era of great peers. THe QBS of the early 80's is probably the best collective group of a decade and he stood out among them all.

And he did it in an era of ferocious defenders. Today we talk about JJ Watt as being unparalleled and there's not a lot to compare him to. But in Montana's day, when teams still could hit and play., you had Lawrence Taylor, Mike Singletary, Bruce Smith, Reggie White, Charles Haley, Darrell Green, Deion Sanders. Just a list that goes on and on and on of AWESOME defenders you had to play against every week.

yeah, he was great, but people think of him as best ever because they do remember the good but forget the rest.

for a guy who never failed he didn't seem to be able to match brady's sb pace despite playing on historic teams.

I already posted some of his ####ty playoff performances that cost them sb trips, but as you mentioned, those are all forgotten now

 

[The Westin]

Funny how a Russel Wilson interception cemented Tom Brady's legacy.

I will never forget a thread here in 2010 when people argued the question of "If Pittsburgh beats GB in the Super Bowl, is Big Ben better than Brady?"

Just goes to show how people put to much value in SB wins.

Either way, the argument is pointless. It is impossible to analyze QBs from different eras.

Brady is the best of his era.

Montana is the best of his era.

Why even try to compare Quarterbacks who played at times when rules were completely different?

yeah but if brady doesn't go mental in the 4th q we don't even set wilson up to throw that pick

so much of all this is in your perception

It is 100% perception. Not mine, but everyone's. That's my point.

Brady played a hell of a game, but if Wilson completes that pass nobody remembers that Brady threw 4 TDs against that dominant defense.

If Wilson completes that pass, Brady is remembered just as much for losing his last 3 Super Bowls as he is for winning his first 3. All based on something he had no control over.

My point is football is so much a team sport, its foolish to say "Ok, Brady won the Super Bowl last night. He is now the best ever"

And this isn't an anti-Brady thing. I made the exact same argument when a bunch of Steeler fans said Big Ben would be equal to Brady if Pitt beat GB. Its ridiculous.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Yeah the argument that 4-0 > 4-2 is one of the dumbest to ever occur in this conversation.

It's called math and knowing the objective.

The one and only goal of great teams is to win the championship and while we can nit pick the level of opponents teams had in different eras and how much weight is given to this and that, the facts are, given the opportunity to play in and win a title, Montana NEVER failed. And I say this as a Brady fan. ANd I didn't even particularly like Montana back in the day so this isn't a biased argument for or against a player. Its just simple facts. To be great, you have to do it better than anyone and when you never lose in the Super Bowl you are pretty good. If Brady wins 6 rings before he retires, he's the greatest. Even if he takes 12 cracks at it. It is a fluid thing but as it stands now, 100% success is better than 66% success and we didn't even take into account the different eras.

Pick your horse and lobby for him. We are all right here because it depends on our opinions. I have mine and others have theirs and we aren't swaying any votes here.

yeah, he failed like 10 yrs out of 14, or whatever it was.

it's called math

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Funny how a Russel Wilson interception cemented Tom Brady's legacy.

I will never forget a thread here in 2010 when people argued the question of "If Pittsburgh beats GB in the Super Bowl, is Big Ben better than Brady?"

Just goes to show how people put to much value in SB wins.

Either way, the argument is pointless. It is impossible to analyze QBs from different eras.

Brady is the best of his era.

Montana is the best of his era.

Why even try to compare Quarterbacks who played at times when rules were completely different?

yeah but if brady doesn't go mental in the 4th q we don't even set wilson up to throw that pick

so much of all this is in your perception

It is 100% perception. Not mine, but everyone's. That's my point.

Brady played a hell of a game, but if Wilson completes that pass nobody remembers that Brady threw 4 TDs against that dominant defense.

If Wilson completes that pass, Brady is remembered just as much for losing his last 3 Super Bowls as he is for winning his first 3. All based on something he had no control over.

My point is football is so much a team sport, its foolish to say "Ok, Brady won the Super Bowl last night. He is now the best ever"

And this isn't an anti-Brady thing. I made the exact same argument when a bunch of Steeler fans said Big Ben would be equal to Brady if Pitt beat GB. Its ridiculous.

I absolutely agree about it being a team sport, but what you're talking about can go both ways

what if reche caldwell can hold onto a ####### football in '06?

what if this guy does this, or that guy does that in the superbowl losses, etc?

maybe brady has 7 rings right now

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

With that being said, I think the best ever...the guy that they said, "the fate of the multiverse depends on you winning this one Super Bowl, who ya got?", I'm going with Joe Cool. Montanna suceeeded EVERY opportunity he had, in any way the opposition tried to draw up. Give me 10 free throws and if I make 6 out of 10, yeah, I'm good I guess. But give me 10 and if I make all ten, that's just a bit more IMO.

I don't know why people contain the conversation to Super Bowls. The suggestion here is that it's better to lose in the first or second round than get your team to the Super Bowl and lose. Montana lost in the playoffs 7 times. So, no, he's not 4 for 4. He's 4 for 11.

But it doesn't have to be the Super Bowl as the caliber. If you grew up in that era or you watched a lot of football during his career you may not have all the numbers in your head (the pro bowls, SB championships, MVPs, highest passer rating 5 years, etc, etc,) but you remember he just NEVER seemed to fail.

You must be referring the first game of the 1985 playoffs where 26/47 for 296 and a pick (65.6 passer rating)

Or the first game of the 1986 playoffs where he was 8 for 15 for 98 yards and 2 picks (34.2 passer rating)

Or the first game of the 1987 playoffs where he was 12 for 26 for 109 and a pick (42 passer rating).

but besides those games

we aren't counting any games we can't remember

 

[The Westin]

Funny how a Russel Wilson interception cemented Tom Brady's legacy.

I will never forget a thread here in 2010 when people argued the question of "If Pittsburgh beats GB in the Super Bowl, is Big Ben better than Brady?"

Just goes to show how people put to much value in SB wins.

Either way, the argument is pointless. It is impossible to analyze QBs from different eras.

Brady is the best of his era.

Montana is the best of his era.

Why even try to compare Quarterbacks who played at times when rules were completely different?

yeah but if brady doesn't go mental in the 4th q we don't even set wilson up to throw that pick

so much of all this is in your perception

It is 100% perception. Not mine, but everyone's. That's my point.

Brady played a hell of a game, but if Wilson completes that pass nobody remembers that Brady threw 4 TDs against that dominant defense.

If Wilson completes that pass, Brady is remembered just as much for losing his last 3 Super Bowls as he is for winning his first 3. All based on something he had no control over.

My point is football is so much a team sport, its foolish to say "Ok, Brady won the Super Bowl last night. He is now the best ever"

And this isn't an anti-Brady thing. I made the exact same argument when a bunch of Steeler fans said Big Ben would be equal to Brady if Pitt beat GB. Its ridiculous.

I absolutely agree about it being a team sport, but what you're talking about can go both ways

what if reche caldwell can hold onto a ####### football in '06?

what if this guy does this, or that guy does that in the superbowl losses, etc?

maybe brady has 7 rings right now

I agree.

And if Brandon Bostick doesn't try to catch an onside kick, maybe the Pats play GB in the Super Bowl instead of Seattle. Maybe Rodgers gets his 2nd ring.

If McCourty and Harmon don't intercept Joe Flacco, maybe the Ravens get their 2nd ring in 3 years.

There is so much that goes on in football, it is just ridiculous to sit there and say "Quarterback X has more rings. So he must be the best ever"

 

[TobiasFunke]

Funny how a Russel Wilson interception cemented Tom Brady's legacy.

I will never forget a thread here in 2010 when people argued the question of "If Pittsburgh beats GB in the Super Bowl, is Big Ben better than Brady?"

Just goes to show how people put to much value in SB wins.

Either way, the argument is pointless. It is impossible to analyze QBs from different eras.

Brady is the best of his era.

Montana is the best of his era.

Why even try to compare Quarterbacks who played at times when rules were completely different?

yeah but if brady doesn't go mental in the 4th q we don't even set wilson up to throw that pick

so much of all this is in your perception

It is 100% perception. Not mine, but everyone's. That's my point.

Brady played a hell of a game, but if Wilson completes that pass nobody remembers that Brady threw 4 TDs against that dominant defense.

If Wilson completes that pass, Brady is remembered just as much for losing his last 3 Super Bowls as he is for winning his first 3. All based on something he had no control over.

My point is football is so much a team sport, its foolish to say "Ok, Brady won the Super Bowl last night. He is now the best ever"

And this isn't an anti-Brady thing. I made the exact same argument when a bunch of Steeler fans said Big Ben would be equal to Brady if Pitt beat GB. Its ridiculous.

I absolutely agree about it being a team sport, but what you're talking about can go both ways

what if reche caldwell can hold onto a ####### football in '06?

what if this guy does this, or that guy does that in the superbowl losses, etc?

maybe brady has 7 rings right now

And maybe he has zero. Easy to do four breaks his team caught have nothing to do with Brady's skill or lack thereof:

- "Tuck rule" call goes against him

- Panthers don't kick it out of bounds after tying game with a minute left, then win it in OT

- McNabb doesn't throw pick on third to last possession, then forget to run hurry-up offense on second-to-last possession

- Seahawks sideline doesn't have brain fart at the end of the game last night

Football is a quirky game and the QB plays less of a role than people seem to think. That's why it's silly to evaluate QBs this way. Brady's an all-time great because of the numbers he put up and his team's success on offense over 13 seasons, not because of how he did in a handful of games.

 

[espnespn]

This game is the most important of his career IMO.

If the Patriots win:

- he did it against the best defense in the league

- no cheating questions, balls will be filled to proper PSI, being watched like a hawk for anything improper.

- playing against another good offense with a clutch QB

Barring a terrible performance in which he's bailed out by his defense to win it, winning this Super Bowl cements as a top 5 QB all-time, erases any questions about his first 3 SB wins, makes a solid argument as the GOAT.

It took tremendous luck to get the win, but he cemented his legacy with those two TD drives.

I'm not sure how anyone could call Brady's 2 TD drives in the 4th quarter "tremendous luck". Also, the INT by Butler was not "tremendous luck" -- he made a fantastic defensive play.

Tremendous luck is Kearse getting the ball randomly deflected to him, and catching it with his back on the ground.

 

[Bossman]

I'm of the thinking that Super Bowl victories are team achievements ... not a result of being the best QB.

I don't like when NFL annalists compare and rank QB's by the number of SB rings.

... but yesterdays game was completely on Tom Brady. No run game and despite the game saving int, his defense was average.

Dude has now done it over a span of 14 years. Anything after this is just cementing his legacy as GOAT!

 

[cstu]

This game is the most important of his career IMO.

If the Patriots win:

- he did it against the best defense in the league

- no cheating questions, balls will be filled to proper PSI, being watched like a hawk for anything improper.

- playing against another good offense with a clutch QB

Barring a terrible performance in which he's bailed out by his defense to win it, winning this Super Bowl cements as a top 5 QB all-time, erases any questions about his first 3 SB wins, makes a solid argument as the GOAT.

It took tremendous luck to get the win, but he cemented his legacy with those two TD drives.

I'm not sure how anyone could call Brady's 2 TD drives in the 4th quarter "tremendous luck". Also, the INT by Butler was not "tremendous luck" -- he made a fantastic defensive play.

Tremendous luck is Kearse getting the ball randomly deflected to him, and catching it with his back on the ground.

The tremendous luck I was referring to was throwing the ball with 2nd and goal at the one with Beast Mode in the backfield.

 

[General Tso]

This game is the most important of his career IMO.

If the Patriots win:

- he did it against the best defense in the league

- no cheating questions, balls will be filled to proper PSI, being watched like a hawk for anything improper.

- playing against another good offense with a clutch QB

Barring a terrible performance in which he's bailed out by his defense to win it, winning this Super Bowl cements as a top 5 QB all-time, erases any questions about his first 3 SB wins, makes a solid argument as the GOAT.

It took tremendous luck to get the win, but he cemented his legacy with those two TD drives.

I'm not sure how anyone could call Brady's 2 TD drives in the 4th quarter "tremendous luck". Also, the INT by Butler was not "tremendous luck" -- he made a fantastic defensive play.

Tremendous luck is Kearse getting the ball randomly deflected to him, and catching it with his back on the ground.

Great post. Right on the money. Nothing lucky about that play by Butler. One of he best football plays you will ever see. Textbook perfect.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm of the thinking that Super Bowl victories are team achievements ... not a result of being the best QB.

I don't like when NFL annalists compare and rank QB's by the number of SB rings.

... but yesterdays game was completely on Tom Brady. No run game and despite the game saving int, his defense was average.

Dude has now done it over a span of 14 years. Anything after this is just cementing his legacy as GOAT!

He threw two rather ugly interceptions, including one that took points off the board. If Seattle scores on that final possession, that first INT and the three points it gave away haunt New England fans forever.

 

[Niles Standish]

This game is the most important of his career IMO.

If the Patriots win:

- he did it against the best defense in the league

- no cheating questions, balls will be filled to proper PSI, being watched like a hawk for anything improper.

- playing against another good offense with a clutch QB

Barring a terrible performance in which he's bailed out by his defense to win it, winning this Super Bowl cements as a top 5 QB all-time, erases any questions about his first 3 SB wins, makes a solid argument as the GOAT.

It took tremendous luck to get the win, but he cemented his legacy with those two TD drives.

I'm not sure how anyone could call Brady's 2 TD drives in the 4th quarter "tremendous luck". Also, the INT by Butler was not "tremendous luck" -- he made a fantastic defensive play.

Tremendous luck is Kearse getting the ball randomly deflected to him, and catching it with his back on the ground.

The tremendous luck I was referring to was throwing the ball with 2nd and goal at the one with Beast Mode in the backfield.

I wish I could find it, but I read something like Lynch is 1 of 5 or 1 of 7 this year from the 1.

Seattle had 2 TDs from the 1 that I could find all season. 1 was run by Lynch. 1 was thrown by Wilson.

The play turned out badly for them. But I don't think it's nearly as bad of a call as people are making it out to be.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This game is the most important of his career IMO.

If the Patriots win:

- he did it against the best defense in the league

- no cheating questions, balls will be filled to proper PSI, being watched like a hawk for anything improper.

- playing against another good offense with a clutch QB

Barring a terrible performance in which he's bailed out by his defense to win it, winning this Super Bowl cements as a top 5 QB all-time, erases any questions about his first 3 SB wins, makes a solid argument as the GOAT.

It took tremendous luck to get the win, but he cemented his legacy with those two TD drives.

I'm not sure how anyone could call Brady's 2 TD drives in the 4th quarter "tremendous luck". Also, the INT by Butler was not "tremendous luck" -- he made a fantastic defensive play.

Tremendous luck is Kearse getting the ball randomly deflected to him, and catching it with his back on the ground.

The tremendous luck I was referring to was throwing the ball with 2nd and goal at the one with Beast Mode in the backfield.

I wish I could find it, but I read something like Lynch is 1 of 5 or 1 of 7 this year from the 1.

Seattle had 2 TDs from the 1 that I could find all season. 1 was run by Lynch. 1 was thrown by Wilson.

The play turned out badly for them. But I don't think it's nearly as bad of a call as people are making it out to be.

I've seen this before. It's the worst kind of abuse of small sample size, limiting the data to this only because it tells a "contrarian" story. The average short yardage conversion rate is well north of 50%, and Lynch is one of the many that's above 50%. It's slightly harder to convert at the goal line than a typical short yardage conversion because the defense only has to cover 11 yards back from the line, but even if you assume it's 40% conversion rate you're still talking about close to an 80% chance of a TD on three attempts. And if you don't trust Lynch you can have Wilson sneak it, or give it to the fullback on a quick handoff out of the I.

It was absolutely as bad of a call as people are making it out to be.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Funny how a Russel Wilson interception cemented Tom Brady's legacy.

I will never forget a thread here in 2010 when people argued the question of "If Pittsburgh beats GB in the Super Bowl, is Big Ben better than Brady?"

Just goes to show how people put to much value in SB wins.

Either way, the argument is pointless. It is impossible to analyze QBs from different eras.

Brady is the best of his era.

Montana is the best of his era.

Why even try to compare Quarterbacks who played at times when rules were completely different?

yeah but if brady doesn't go mental in the 4th q we don't even set wilson up to throw that pick

so much of all this is in your perception

It is 100% perception. Not mine, but everyone's. That's my point.

Brady played a hell of a game, but if Wilson completes that pass nobody remembers that Brady threw 4 TDs against that dominant defense.

If Wilson completes that pass, Brady is remembered just as much for losing his last 3 Super Bowls as he is for winning his first 3. All based on something he had no control over.

My point is football is so much a team sport, its foolish to say "Ok, Brady won the Super Bowl last night. He is now the best ever"

And this isn't an anti-Brady thing. I made the exact same argument when a bunch of Steeler fans said Big Ben would be equal to Brady if Pitt beat GB. Its ridiculous.

I absolutely agree about it being a team sport, but what you're talking about can go both ways

what if reche caldwell can hold onto a ####### football in '06?

what if this guy does this, or that guy does that in the superbowl losses, etc?

maybe brady has 7 rings right now

And maybe he has zero. Easy to do four breaks his team caught have nothing to do with Brady's skill or lack thereof:

- "Tuck rule" call goes against him

- Panthers don't kick it out of bounds after tying game with a minute left, then win it in OT

- McNabb doesn't throw pick on third to last possession, then forget to run hurry-up offense on second-to-last possession

- Seahawks sideline doesn't have brain fart at the end of the game last night

Football is a quirky game and the QB plays less of a role than people seem to think. That's why it's silly to evaluate QBs this way. Brady's an all-time great because of the numbers he put up and his team's success on offense over 13 seasons, not because of how he did in a handful of games.

but if brady isn't brady they aren't in position to 'catch lucky breaks'

brady just put on an all time great performance to even get butler on the stage

 

[espnespn]

This game is the most important of his career IMO.

If the Patriots win:

- he did it against the best defense in the league

- no cheating questions, balls will be filled to proper PSI, being watched like a hawk for anything improper.

- playing against another good offense with a clutch QB

Barring a terrible performance in which he's bailed out by his defense to win it, winning this Super Bowl cements as a top 5 QB all-time, erases any questions about his first 3 SB wins, makes a solid argument as the GOAT.

It took tremendous luck to get the win, but he cemented his legacy with those two TD drives.

I'm not sure how anyone could call Brady's 2 TD drives in the 4th quarter "tremendous luck". Also, the INT by Butler was not "tremendous luck" -- he made a fantastic defensive play.

Tremendous luck is Kearse getting the ball randomly deflected to him, and catching it with his back on the ground.

The tremendous luck I was referring to was throwing the ball with 2nd and goal at the one with Beast Mode in the backfield.

I wish I could find it, but I read something like Lynch is 1 of 5 or 1 of 7 this year from the 1.

Seattle had 2 TDs from the 1 that I could find all season. 1 was run by Lynch. 1 was thrown by Wilson.

The play turned out badly for them. But I don't think it's nearly as bad of a call as people are making it out to be.

I've seen this before. It's the worst kind of abuse of small sample size, limiting the data to this only because it tells a "contrarian" story. The average short yardage conversion rate is well north of 50%, and Lynch is one of the many that's above 50%. It's slightly harder to convert at the goal line than a typical short yardage conversion because the defense only has to cover 11 yards back from the line, but even if you assume it's 40% conversion rate you're still talking about close to an 80% chance of a TD on three attempts. And if you don't trust Lynch you can have Wilson sneak it, or give it to the fullback on a quick handoff out of the I.

It was absolutely as bad of a call as people are making it out to be.

https://twitter.com/SheilKapadia/status/562101647963594753/photo/1

I just saw this picture. Seattle receiver was open. Butler just made a better play.

 

[DropKick]

Troll seems to be the most misused word on these boards.

And yet we seem to under-use the word "puppy."

Puppies are good.

Which is kind of surprising since the word is so versatile; For example, she has some great puppies.

As far as Brady, this game does a lot to silence his critics; 4th quarter comeback against a very good team for a 4th SB win.

Manning and Brady will always be compared; two great QBs from the same era in the same conference with the other always a barrier to the SB. It is a team game but it will be hard to argue Manning over Brady given Brady's edge in head to head, play-off success and ultimately, championships.

Ranking the QBs may be "fun" but it is a futile exercise... Being what they are, fans will always have their favorites and peace in the Middle East is more likely than a consensus in this debate.

I will always be a Marino guy. So, I will always appreciate how hard it is to get to a SB. It is that much harder to win - Dan went against the 49ers in their prime in his only shot. Seasons slip past; injuries, etc. and opportunities go by the board... No championships for Marino; and only one for Manning, Favre, Rodgers, Brees... The clock is ticking for Manning and Brees and Rodgers seems likely to win again but you just never know...

Six appearances is hard to fathom.

 

[shader]

I think Brady is now in the discussion, but lets face it, there wasn't a slam-dunk "best ever QB" before this super bowl.

So Brady winning this super bowl isn't going to change the debate.

I think the only way Brady is the slam-dunk "best ever" is, sadly, if he wins a 5th. He's MY best-ever, and I can build a pretty strong case for it.

But only a 5th will convince everyone, imo.

 

[Phenomena]

Not a Pats fan but I don't see how he isn't GOAT.

Six super bowls, four wins, never having an elite defense or running game. Completely different personnel between the first super bowls and the last one. Beat the one of the best defenses ever this year.

Bradshaw and Montana went 4/4 but Brady won four plus got to two more. Awesome.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Funny how a Russel Wilson interception cemented Tom Brady's legacy.

I will never forget a thread here in 2010 when people argued the question of "If Pittsburgh beats GB in the Super Bowl, is Big Ben better than Brady?"

Just goes to show how people put to much value in SB wins.

Either way, the argument is pointless. It is impossible to analyze QBs from different eras.

Brady is the best of his era.

Montana is the best of his era.

Why even try to compare Quarterbacks who played at times when rules were completely different?

yeah but if brady doesn't go mental in the 4th q we don't even set wilson up to throw that pick

so much of all this is in your perception

It is 100% perception. Not mine, but everyone's. That's my point.

Brady played a hell of a game, but if Wilson completes that pass nobody remembers that Brady threw 4 TDs against that dominant defense.

If Wilson completes that pass, Brady is remembered just as much for losing his last 3 Super Bowls as he is for winning his first 3. All based on something he had no control over.

My point is football is so much a team sport, its foolish to say "Ok, Brady won the Super Bowl last night. He is now the best ever"

And this isn't an anti-Brady thing. I made the exact same argument when a bunch of Steeler fans said Big Ben would be equal to Brady if Pitt beat GB. Its ridiculous.

I absolutely agree about it being a team sport, but what you're talking about can go both ways

what if reche caldwell can hold onto a ####### football in '06?

what if this guy does this, or that guy does that in the superbowl losses, etc?

maybe brady has 7 rings right now

And maybe he has zero. Easy to do four breaks his team caught have nothing to do with Brady's skill or lack thereof:

- "Tuck rule" call goes against him

- Panthers don't kick it out of bounds after tying game with a minute left, then win it in OT

- McNabb doesn't throw pick on third to last possession, then forget to run hurry-up offense on second-to-last possession

- Seahawks sideline doesn't have brain fart at the end of the game last night

Football is a quirky game and the QB plays less of a role than people seem to think. That's why it's silly to evaluate QBs this way. Brady's an all-time great because of the numbers he put up and his team's success on offense over 13 seasons, not because of how he did in a handful of games.

but if brady isn't brady they aren't in position to 'catch lucky breaks'

brady just put on an all time great performance to even get butler on the stage

Yup. And in the regular season too, to set them up playoff appearances and favorable matchups, often at home. That's what makes him so great, not last night ... where as I said he could easily have been the goat if the Pats lost by the exact number of points he gave away with a horrible INT early in the game.

 

[shader]

In my opinion, Brady only ever had two great talents. One is Randy Moss, and he only had him a few years and broke records with him. Gronk is the other, and he's been hurt a lot over the past few years.

When he finally got a healthy Gronk in the playoffs, he won a super bowl.

I think if I'm the Pats, I load up on offense this off-season and try to get one more epic offensive team, centered around Brady.

 

[Boston]

In my opinion, Brady only ever had two great talents. One is Randy Moss, and he only had him a few years and broke records with him. Gronk is the other, and he's been hurt a lot over the past few years.

When he finally got a healthy Gronk in the playoffs, he won a super bowl.

I think if I'm the Pats, I load up on offense this off-season and try to get one more epic offensive team, centered around Brady.

I would rather load up on defense...that unit has a real chance to take it to another level...on O I think you need to add some more O line help and another WR with big play ability would be huge...

 

[Bigboy10182000]

I'm an Eagles fan and ffter last night he is the G.O.A.T.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

In my opinion, Brady only ever had two great talents. One is Randy Moss, and he only had him a few years and broke records with him. Gronk is the other, and he's been hurt a lot over the past few years.

When he finally got a healthy Gronk in the playoffs, he won a super bowl.

Yes, but he's also had the luxury of playing for arguably the greatest coach in NFL history.

there's no qb in the history of forever that could singlehandedly take this year's raiders team to a sb win --- every great qb needs pieces around them in a team sport

how was montana's coach?

how was the defense?

etc

not to mention the fact that i thought the trolls were always saying brady made belichick

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

In my opinion, Brady only ever had two great talents. One is Randy Moss, and he only had him a few years and broke records with him. Gronk is the other, and he's been hurt a lot over the past few years.

When he finally got a healthy Gronk in the playoffs, he won a super bowl.

I think if I'm the Pats, I load up on offense this off-season and try to get one more epic offensive team, centered around Brady.

I would rather load up on defense...that unit has a real chance to take it to another level...on O I think you need to add some more O line help and another WR with big play ability would be huge...

if they took nothing but linemen on both sides of the ball in this draft I would have zero complaint, but I think they're in a good spot for more of a bpa approach.

 

[Boston]

In my opinion, Brady only ever had two great talents. One is Randy Moss, and he only had him a few years and broke records with him. Gronk is the other, and he's been hurt a lot over the past few years.

When he finally got a healthy Gronk in the playoffs, he won a super bowl.

I think if I'm the Pats, I load up on offense this off-season and try to get one more epic offensive team, centered around Brady.

I would rather load up on defense...that unit has a real chance to take it to another level...on O I think you need to add some more O line help and another WR with big play ability would be huge...

if they took nothing but linemen on both sides of the ball in this draft I would have zero complaint, but I think they're in a good spot for more of a bpa approach.

Agreed on both points...would love to see Easley come back and be able to add some pass rush up the middle...