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

[Hooper31]

Scott Kacsmar doing a wonderful job on twitter of pointing out why discussions like this are arbitrary and pointless.

I have no problem saying that Brady is a great QB. Love his game. Love his approach. Love his focus and commitment. But to say player X is better than player Y because of wins and losses is weak.

It's not just wins and losses. I think you know that.

Okay. What's your point? Go ahead and attempt to make a case, but don't bother with team metrics.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Scott Kacsmar doing a wonderful job on twitter of pointing out why discussions like this are arbitrary and pointless.

Just wanted to add this tweet from him cause I really, really agree:

Scott Kacsmar‏@FO_ScottKacsmarhttps://twitter.com/FO_ScottKacsmar
I hate that the guide for how great players like Brady & LeBron are is based on whether things like the Butler INT or Ray Allen 3pt happen.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Scott Kacsmar doing a wonderful job on twitter of pointing out why discussions like this are arbitrary and pointless.

I have no problem saying that Brady is a great QB. Love his game. Love his approach. Love his focus and commitment. But to say player X is better than player Y because of wins and losses is weak.

It's not just wins and losses. I think you know that.

Okay. What's your point? Go ahead and attempt to make a case, but don't bother with team metrics.

What, in the NFL, is not a team metric?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Scott Kacsmar doing a wonderful job on twitter of pointing out why discussions like this are arbitrary and pointless.

Just wanted to add this tweet from him cause I really, really agree:

Scott Kacsmar‏@FO_ScottKacsmarhttps://twitter.com/FO_ScottKacsmar
I hate that the guide for how great players like Brady & LeBron are is based on whether things like the Butler INT or Ray Allen 3pt happen.

could we really stop this ####### nonsense that gets posted and then debunked a dozen times?

can you just take 2 min to read the thread rather than reposting half of it for no reason?

scott kacsmar is a ####### idiot -- having access to twitter doesn't really make him some kind of authority on anything

 

[Hooper31]

Scott Kacsmar doing a wonderful job on twitter of pointing out why discussions like this are arbitrary and pointless.

Just wanted to add this tweet from him cause I really, really agree:

Scott Kacsmar‏@FO_ScottKacsmarhttps://twitter.com/FO_ScottKacsmar

I hate that the guide for how great players like Brady & LeBron are is based on whether things like the Butler INT or Ray Allen 3pt happen.

could we really stop this ####### nonsense that gets posted and then debunked a dozen times?

can you just take 2 min to read the thread rather than reposting half of it for no reason?

scott kacsmar is a ####### idiot -- having access to twitter doesn't really make him some kind of authority on anything

Of course it doesn't, but the wealth of statistical work he's done at Outsiders speaks for itself, as does your emotional rants.

 

[Hooper31]

Scott Kacsmar doing a wonderful job on twitter of pointing out why discussions like this are arbitrary and pointless.

I have no problem saying that Brady is a great QB. Love his game. Love his approach. Love his focus and commitment. But to say player X is better than player Y because of wins and losses is weak.

It's not just wins and losses. I think you know that.

Okay. What's your point? Go ahead and attempt to make a case, but don't bother with team metrics.

What, in the NFL, is not a team metric?

Exactly. Its a team game. Why isn't it enough to say Brady is one of the best to ever play the position? Why the need to try to justify and rationalize?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

well, I'll say it again --- don't know how much repetition you need to use with some people.

to look past brady's 13/15 for 130 yds and 2 td, or whatever it was, in the 4th q against the best defense in football that had given up like 13 pts in the last 8 4th quarters just to focus in on a single play because it happened to be the last play sequentially is ####### idiocy.

without brady being the greatest qb ever butler never even gets a chance to be a 1 play hero and close that game.

what are joe montana's 4 sb wins if not a team metric??

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Scott Kacsmar doing a wonderful job on twitter of pointing out why discussions like this are arbitrary and pointless.

I have no problem saying that Brady is a great QB. Love his game. Love his approach. Love his focus and commitment. But to say player X is better than player Y because of wins and losses is weak.

It's not just wins and losses. I think you know that.

Okay. What's your point? Go ahead and attempt to make a case, but don't bother with team metrics.

What, in the NFL, is not a team metric?

Exactly. Its a team game. Why isn't it enough to say Brady is one of the best to ever play the position? Why the need to try to justify and rationalize?

ok, was this thread started by a pats fan?

 

[ShamrockPride]

Scott Kacsmar doing a wonderful job on twitter of pointing out why discussions like this are arbitrary and pointless.

I have no problem saying that Brady is a great QB. Love his game. Love his approach. Love his focus and commitment. But to say player X is better than player Y because of wins and losses is weak.

It's not just wins and losses. I think you know that.

Okay. What's your point? Go ahead and attempt to make a case, but don't bother with team metrics.

What, in the NFL, is not a team metric?

Exactly. Its a team game. Why isn't it enough to say Brady is one of the best to ever play the position? Why the need to try to justify and rationalize?

ok, was this thread started by a pats fan?

Nope, but it got taken over by them almost immediately. You know, when Pats fans see their boy they gotta come flock and make a point for him.

OP's OP: "I won't lie, I'm rooting for Brady and the Patriots. He's the Golden Boy. I don't think a QB can beat an entire team, you need everyone to contribute."

So naturally what do all the NE fans do? Act like Brady beat the entire team.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Scott Kacsmar doing a wonderful job on twitter of pointing out why discussions like this are arbitrary and pointless.

I have no problem saying that Brady is a great QB. Love his game. Love his approach. Love his focus and commitment. But to say player X is better than player Y because of wins and losses is weak.

It's not just wins and losses. I think you know that.

Okay. What's your point? Go ahead and attempt to make a case, but don't bother with team metrics.

What, in the NFL, is not a team metric?

Exactly. Its a team game. Why isn't it enough to say Brady is one of the best to ever play the position? Why the need to try to justify and rationalize?

ok, was this thread started by a pats fan?

Nope, but it got taken over by them almost immediately. You know, when Pats fans see their boy they gotta come flock and make a point for him.

OP's OP: "I won't lie, I'm rooting for Brady and the Patriots. He's the Golden Boy. I don't think a QB can beat an entire team, you need everyone to contribute."

So naturally what do all the NE fans do? Act like Brady beat the entire team.

what's the #1 argument presented for montana as greatest ever?

 

[PatsWillWin]

Scott Kacsmar doing a wonderful job on twitter of pointing out why discussions like this are arbitrary and pointless.

I have no problem saying that Brady is a great QB. Love his game. Love his approach. Love his focus and commitment. But to say player X is better than player Y because of wins and losses is weak.

It's not just wins and losses. I think you know that.

Okay. What's your point? Go ahead and attempt to make a case, but don't bother with team metrics.

What, in the NFL, is not a team metric?

Exactly. Its a team game. Why isn't it enough to say Brady is one of the best to ever play the position? Why the need to try to justify and rationalize?

There's no "need" to do anything. Just like there's no "need" to discuss the dynasty value of Christine Michael in the thread next door. It's a conversation people have.

And I agree that the game is played by teams, but that doesn't mean it's somehow impossible to compare one player to another. I'm pretty sure you could tell me why Tony Romo is better than Andy Dalton.

 

[ShamrockPride]

what's the #1 argument presented for montana as greatest ever?

Among board-goers that he has a goose egg in his SB loss column.

 

[Hooper31]

ok, was this thread started by a pats fan?

Why is that relevant? Are you under the impression that I have some vendetta towards the Pats or their fans?

I think anyone using wins and losses to measure QB play is dumb. I equally apply that to all QBs. I think its equally silly to talk about all the superbowl winning QBs that Russell Wulson has beat. Those wins were earned by a team, not a QB. Sure, he played apart, perhaps even a large part. Same is true for Montana and Brady.

 

[Hooper31]

I'm pretty sure you could tell me why Tony Romo is better than Andy Dalton.

I would rather have Romo QB my team. I think hewould givemy team a better chance to win games. Nothing else needs to be said IMO.

 

[sn0mm1s]

what's the #1 argument presented for montana as greatest ever?

Among board-goers that he has a goose egg in his SB loss column.

Not this board goer.

1) Montana retired #1 in career rating - and was even better in the playoffs.

2) Adjusted for era Montana's efficiency stats are still better than Brady's.

3) He played better in the big dances than Brady.

I have Brady as #2 - and he is very close - so it isn't like I think there is a big difference and the points above are really just an exercise in splitting hairs. I don't think Montana is untouchable - nor do I think that someone picking Brady over Montana is being ridiculous - there are plenty of arguments to be made in favor of Brady.

----

Here is what I said on page 2:

For Brady to pass Montana he needs 2 more rings - and he needs to look good doing it in at least one of the games. Montana is responsible for 13 TDs in 4 SBs with no turnovers while Brady is sitting at 9 TDs in 5 SBs with 4 turnovers.

I already have him as my #2 - but if he wins I don't see how he could be worse than anyone else's #2.

---

Here is what I said on page one as to why going 4-2 in SBs could be viewed as worse than 4-0

I think it is partly the perception that Brady was *supposed* to win those games. Montana only lost 2 playoff games that the 49ers were favored to win - Brady has lost 5. Two of those 5 being SBs and one being a SB where the Pats were favored by 12.5.

---

 

[PatsWillWin]

what's the #1 argument presented for montana as greatest ever?

Among board-goers that he has a goose egg in his SB loss column.

I'm not going to say that Brady is definitively #1 over Montana, but this argument is dumb. By this logic, Montana is better than Brady because he won fewer conference championship games.

 

[Insein]

So in order to pass Montana, Brady needs to Win 6 super Bowls? Meaning he would have been to at least 8 in his career to Joe's 4? OK.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

If dinking and dunking is the right thing to do against Seattle's defense and it doesnt take a good QB to do it, how is it that so few can actually seem to do it?

IMO, the reason why Brady is an impressive qb is how quickly he can read a defense and get rid of the ball. It doesnt look impressive, but it really is. Manning is the same way, both have very high QB IQs and excellent pattern recognition.

Brady and Manning are both masters of their respective offenses. A huge part of why they are both so great.

 

[12punch]

Scott Kacsmar doing a wonderful job on twitter of pointing out why discussions like this are arbitrary and pointless. I have no problem saying that Brady is a great QB. Love his game. Love his approach. Love his focus and commitment. But to say player X is better than player Y because of wins and losses is weak.

It's not just wins and losses. I think you know that.

Okay. What's your point? Go ahead and attempt to make a case, but don't bother with team metrics.

What, in the NFL, is not a team metric?

Exactly. Its a team game. Why isn't it enough to say Brady is one of the best to ever play the position? Why the need to try to justify and rationalize?

ok, was this thread started by a pats fan?

Nope, but it got taken over by them almost immediately. You know, when Pats fans see their boy they gotta come flock and make a point for him. OP's OP: "I won't lie, I'm rooting for Brady and the Patriots. He's the Golden Boy. I don't think a QB can beat an entire team, you need everyone to contribute." So naturally what do all the NE fans do? Act like Brady beat the entire team.

Omg Pats Fans Posting In A Btady Thread

Must Have Come As Quite A shock

 

[sn0mm1s]

So in order to pass Montana, Brady needs to Win 6 super Bowls? Meaning he would have been to at least 8 in his career to Joe's 4? OK.

No - 5 SBs.

 

[Sabertooth]

If dinking and dunking is the right thing to do against Seattle's defense and it doesnt take a good QB to do it, how is it that so few can actually seem to do it?

IMO, the reason why Brady is an impressive qb is how quickly he can read a defense and get rid of the ball. It doesnt look impressive, but it really is. Manning is the same way, both have very high QB IQs and excellent pattern recognition.

Brady and Manning are both masters of their respective offenses. A huge part of why they are both so great.

Rodgers too.

 

[Insein]

So in order to pass Montana, Brady needs to Win 6 super Bowls? Meaning he would have been to at least 8 in his career to Joe's 4? OK.

No - 5 SBs.

Ah, so he's won as many as Montana now but he's been to two more than him.

 

[Eminence]

So in order to pass Montana, Brady needs to Win 6 super Bowls? Meaning he would have been to at least 8 in his career to Joe's 4? OK.

No - 5 SBs.

Ah, so he's won as many as Montana now but he's been to two more than him.

That whole argument never made any sense to me. Montana never made it back to a Super Bowl after winning his 4th. Him not getting back to a Super Bowl is somehow better than Brady losing in 2?

To me, it's more impressive to get to the dance and lose than to lose in the Conference championship game which Montana did twice after his 4th Super Bowl win. If Brady would have only lost in the AFC Championship twice instead of the Super Bowl to the Giants twice, then he'd be in better than or at least on equal footing as Montana?

Seems kind of wacky.

 

[theplayer11]

So in order to pass Montana, Brady needs to Win 6 super Bowls? Meaning he would have been to at least 8 in his career to Joe's 4? OK.

No - 5 SBs.

Ah, so he's won as many as Montana now but he's been to two more than him.

That whole argument never made any sense to me. Montana never made it back to a Super Bowl after winning his 4th. Him not getting back to a Super Bowl is somehow better than Brady losing in 2?

To me, it's more impressive to get to the dance and lose than to lose in the Conference championship game which Montana did twice after his 4th Super Bowl win. If Brady would have only lost in the AFC Championship twice instead of the Super Bowl to the Giants twice, then he'd be in better than or at least on equal footing as Montana?

Seems kind of wacky.

it is.. and Brady had given his team late leads in the 2 SBs they lost..So a littele better defense and Brady is 6-0 and now unquestionably the best ever? There us a muddled line betwen wins/loses and a QBs greatness.

 

[12punch]

what's the #1 argument presented for montana as greatest ever?

Among board-goers that he has a goose egg in his SB loss column.

But it's Patsfans Acting Like Brady Beat An Entire Team

ok

 

[Bigboy10182000]

@RossTuckerNFL: If you don't think Brady is G.O.A.T read this & get back to me:... http://t.co/dpKBxDbkli

February 2, 2015
BEST EVER: TOM BRADY SEALS IT
brady

Tom Brady is the greatest quarterback in the history of the NFL.

I thought that before he led the Patriots to a fourth Super Bowl championship on Sunday evening, and of course that victory only reinforced my belief. What exactly would the argument be against him?


Rather than reel off the usual stats cited ad nauseam -- how Brady owns the record for most passing yards and touchdowns in Super Bowl history, how he's in the Top 5 in most major career regular season categories among all QBs, how he has the most playoff TDs -- let's explore the arguments against now that Brady has tied Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana for most Super Bowl wins of all time.

The first is that Bradshaw and Montana never actually lost a Super Bowl while Brady has lost two. It's an inane argument. Any person saying this is essentially positing that you are better off losing in the Wild Card Round or Divisional Round than actually getting to the Super Bowl and losing.

That makes no sense whatsoever. The goal is to win more games, not less. Kind of like "better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all," it is better to have actually gotten to the Super Bowl and lost in any given year than to have fallen short.

Doesn't Peyton Manning get ripped all the time for how many "one and dones" he has in the playoffs during his career? Would anyone argue for his legacy that it was better that he lost those games than actually reaching the Super Bowl those seasons, even if they fell short in the big game? Of course not.

One of the other things Brady doubters bring up is simply the brilliance of his head coach, Bill Belichick. One of the biggest reasons why Brady has won so much is that Belichick is the best coach of all time, the theory goes. I'm not going to diminish Belichick's accomplishments. He's a terrific coach and a great argument can be made for him as being the best.

But isn't Bradshaw's Chuck Noll and Montana's Bill Walsh in that same conversation? If you are saying Brady's success is primarily a result of coaching, are you inferring that Bradshaw and Montana and any other quarterback in this debate did it in spite of their coaches? Dan Marino was coached by guys like Don Shula and Jimmy Johnson. John Elway's Super Bowls were under the watchful eye of Dan Reeves and Mike Shanahan.

Point is, it is a reciprocal relationship and you'd be hard-pressed to find many great quarterbacks that were coached by slouches. It just doesn't happen, at least not to the level where they are in the discussion among the best ever.

Last but certainly not least when it comes to the anti-Brady debate is the Patriots' impropriety, both alleged (Deflate-gate) and confirmed (Spygate). This is the argument that probably carries the most weight, but even if you believe that the Patriots -- and, by association, Brady -- benefited from these incidents, I think you have to really ask yourself how much.

Even after the Patriots were busted for Spygate, they went on to have a perfect regular season and were a play away in a couple different points in the Super Bowl from the first 19-0 season.

And this year, no matter what the NFL's finding ends up being as it relates to the deflated balls, you have to acknowledge that it was not the reason they demolished the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship Game. Furthermore, the balls weren't a factor in their Super Bowl victory over the Seahawks.

The bottom line is that whatever they did had a minimal impact on their success, I believe. Just look at what else they were able to accomplish after the fact in both instances, despite all the distractions those controversies caused.

Sure, some people will choose to label the Patriots, Belichick and Brady as cheaters and never give them their due, and I understand that.

Not me, though. Brady's the best I've ever seen and I still haven't heard a very good argument to the contrary.

 

[espnespn]

So in order to pass Montana, Brady needs to Win 6 super Bowls? Meaning he would have been to at least 8 in his career to Joe's 4? OK.

No - 5 SBs.

In the first Patriots-Giants SB, Asante Samuel (who had 16 INTs the last 2 seasons) dropped an easy interception that would have iced the game for the Patriots. So if Asante holds on to the ball, Brady would have 5 SB rings, and Brady is now better than Montana?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2011/story/_/page/10spot-superbowlxlvi/one-play-change-everything--adam-schefter-10-spot

 

[ShamrockPride]

Nice opinion article up there. Did you notice all the "I's" he used?

 

[mbuehner]

If Tom Brady wants to be the best Quarterback of all time, he needs to

Not get caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl. Otherwise he's a cinch.

 

[shader]

Does winning ONE super bowl require luck? Yes.

Plays like the INT at the end of Super Bowl 49 could be considered a lucky break if you look at them by themselves.

But then, Brady has been there SIX TIMES. He was on the wrong end of what would have been universally considered the greatest season in NFL history, thanks to a ridiculous David Tyree catch.

If ranking the great QB's, Brady stands out among them all for two reasons:

1. He has the stats

2. He has the rings

Montana has the rings, but no stats. Marino and Manning have the stats, and 1 combined ring.

Brady has it all, and he looks to be able to play another 2-3 years to add to the stats.

He's not the greatest QB BECAUSE of his 4 super bowls...but those 4 super bowl wins (and 6 appearances) do count..

Minimizing the super bowl wins because of "luck" is just ridiculous.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Nice opinion article up there. Did you notice all the "I's" he used?

 

[Brunell4MVP]

My wife keeps telling me how cute Brady is. Therefore, he is an a$$. I hope Bridgette Moynahan cuts off his man bits.

 

[FUBAR]

Give a few more trucks away?

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/03/patriots-tom-brady-gives-super-bowl-mvp-truck-to-malcolm-butler/

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Give a few more trucks away?

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/03/patriots-tom-brady-gives-super-bowl-mvp-truck-to-malcolm-butler/

that's awesome

funny too cuz me and my buddy were talking about he should give butler that truck

just another reason he's the greatest ever

 

[TobiasFunke]

Does winning ONE super bowl require luck? Yes.

Plays like the INT at the end of Super Bowl 49 could be considered a lucky break if you look at them by themselves.

But then, Brady has been there SIX TIMES. He was on the wrong end of what would have been universally considered the greatest season in NFL history, thanks to a ridiculous David Tyree catch.

If ranking the great QB's, Brady stands out among them all for two reasons:

1. He has the stats

2. He has the rings

Montana has the rings, but no stats. Marino and Manning have the stats, and 1 combined ring.

Brady has it all, and he looks to be able to play another 2-3 years to add to the stats.

He's not the greatest QB BECAUSE of his 4 super bowls...but those 4 super bowl wins (and 6 appearances) do count..

Minimizing the super bowl wins because of "luck" is just ridiculous.

Why are Marino and Manning grouped as a single entity? If you want to dismiss someone for not winning a ring (which is silly), dismiss Marino. Manning has a ring. He has appeared in three Super Bowls and won one. Why attempt minimize his team accomplishments by combining them with Marino's?

Separate question- in Brady's four Super Bowl seasons his team ranked 8th, 6th, 1st and and 2nd in scoring defense. They were also 4th in the season before the first of the team's two SB losses during Brady's career. If we gave Manning and Marino five seasons each paired with defenses that successful do you think they would have won more Super Bowls?

 

[The Westin]

Give a few more trucks away?

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/03/patriots-tom-brady-gives-super-bowl-mvp-truck-to-malcolm-butler/

that's awesome

funny too cuz me and my buddy were talking about he should give butler that truck

just another reason he's the greatest ever

It's about as good a reason as Super Bowl wins.

 

[Anarchy99]

Does winning ONE super bowl require luck? Yes.

Plays like the INT at the end of Super Bowl 49 could be considered a lucky break if you look at them by themselves.

But then, Brady has been there SIX TIMES. He was on the wrong end of what would have been universally considered the greatest season in NFL history, thanks to a ridiculous David Tyree catch.

If ranking the great QB's, Brady stands out among them all for two reasons:

1. He has the stats

2. He has the rings

Montana has the rings, but no stats. Marino and Manning have the stats, and 1 combined ring.

Brady has it all, and he looks to be able to play another 2-3 years to add to the stats.

He's not the greatest QB BECAUSE of his 4 super bowls...but those 4 super bowl wins (and 6 appearances) do count..

Minimizing the super bowl wins because of "luck" is just ridiculous.

Why are Marino and Manning grouped as a single entity? If you want to dismiss someone for not winning a ring (which is silly), dismiss Marino. Manning has a ring. He has appeared in three Super Bowls and won one. Why attempt minimize his team accomplishments by combining them with Marino's?

Separate question- in Brady's four Super Bowl seasons his team ranked 8th, 6th, 1st and and 2nd in scoring defense. They were also 4th in the season before the first of the team's two SB losses during Brady's career. If we gave Manning and Marino five seasons each paired with defenses that successful do you think they would have won more Super Bowls?

Since you were the one that brought it up . . .

Top 8 defenses in points allowed with Manning at QB:

2002 IND - 7th

2005 IND - 2nd

2007 IND - 1st

2008 IND - 7th

2009 IND - 8th

2012 DEN - 4th

Titles won in those years . . . ZERO.

Marino with Top 8 defenses based on points allowed:

1983 - 1

1984 - 7

1990 - 4

1998 - 1

Titles won in those years . . . ZERO.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Give a few more trucks away?

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/03/patriots-tom-brady-gives-super-bowl-mvp-truck-to-malcolm-butler/

That's pretty cool.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Does winning ONE super bowl require luck? Yes.

Plays like the INT at the end of Super Bowl 49 could be considered a lucky break if you look at them by themselves.

But then, Brady has been there SIX TIMES. He was on the wrong end of what would have been universally considered the greatest season in NFL history, thanks to a ridiculous David Tyree catch.

If ranking the great QB's, Brady stands out among them all for two reasons:

1. He has the stats

2. He has the rings

Montana has the rings, but no stats. Marino and Manning have the stats, and 1 combined ring.

Brady has it all, and he looks to be able to play another 2-3 years to add to the stats.

He's not the greatest QB BECAUSE of his 4 super bowls...but those 4 super bowl wins (and 6 appearances) do count..

Minimizing the super bowl wins because of "luck" is just ridiculous.

Why are Marino and Manning grouped as a single entity? If you want to dismiss someone for not winning a ring (which is silly), dismiss Marino. Manning has a ring. He has appeared in three Super Bowls and won one. Why attempt minimize his team accomplishments by combining them with Marino's?

Separate question- in Brady's four Super Bowl seasons his team ranked 8th, 6th, 1st and and 2nd in scoring defense. They were also 4th in the season before the first of the team's two SB losses during Brady's career. If we gave Manning and Marino five seasons each paired with defenses that successful do you think they would have won more Super Bowls?

Since you were the one that brought it up . . .

Top 8 defenses in points allowed with Manning at QB:

2002 IND - 7th

2005 IND - 2nd

2007 IND - 1st

2008 IND - 7th

2009 IND - 8th

2012 DEN - 4th

Titles won in those years . . . ZERO.

Marino with Top 8 defenses based on points allowed:

1983 - 1

1984 - 7

1990 - 4

1998 - 1

Titles won in those years . . . ZERO.

Interesting, didn't know that. Although I also left off all the seasons where the Pats finished ranked highly and the Pats didn't make the Super Bowl, like 2009 (5tth) and a few others were they ranked 9th and 10th.

To make it a fair (although still incomplete) comparison you'd have to compare average defensive ranking during the players' careers. Has anyone done that?

 

[bostonfred]

Does winning ONE super bowl require luck? Yes.

Plays like the INT at the end of Super Bowl 49 could be considered a lucky break if you look at them by themselves.

But then, Brady has been there SIX TIMES. He was on the wrong end of what would have been universally considered the greatest season in NFL history, thanks to a ridiculous David Tyree catch.

If ranking the great QB's, Brady stands out among them all for two reasons:

1. He has the stats

2. He has the rings

Montana has the rings, but no stats. Marino and Manning have the stats, and 1 combined ring.

Brady has it all, and he looks to be able to play another 2-3 years to add to the stats.

He's not the greatest QB BECAUSE of his 4 super bowls...but those 4 super bowl wins (and 6 appearances) do count..

Minimizing the super bowl wins because of "luck" is just ridiculous.

Why are Marino and Manning grouped as a single entity? If you want to dismiss someone for not winning a ring (which is silly), dismiss Marino. Manning has a ring. He has appeared in three Super Bowls and won one. Why attempt minimize his team accomplishments by combining them with Marino's?

Separate question- in Brady's four Super Bowl seasons his team ranked 8th, 6th, 1st and and 2nd in scoring defense. They were also 4th in the season before the first of the team's two SB losses during Brady's career. If we gave Manning and Marino five seasons each paired with defenses that successful do you think they would have won more Super Bowls?

Since you were the one that brought it up . . .Top 8 defenses in points allowed with Manning at QB:

2002 IND - 7th

2005 IND - 2nd

2007 IND - 1st

2008 IND - 7th

2009 IND - 8th

2012 DEN - 4th

Titles won in those years . . . ZERO.

Marino with Top 8 defenses based on points allowed:

1983 - 1

1984 - 7

1990 - 4

1998 - 1

Titles won in those years . . . ZERO.

To be fair, that leaves out several years.

1999 scored 16 pts in loss

2000 scored 17 pts in loss

2003 scored 14 pts in loss while throwing four interceptions

2004 scored 3 pts in loss

2006 threw 7 interceptions against just 3tds for his only title

2010 scored 17 pts in superbowl loss, threw pick six to end the game

2013 scored 8 pts in superbowl loss

2014 scored 13 pts in loss

So with the exception of 2006, when his defense and kicker actually did drag him to a superbowl, he's either had a top 8 defense, or scored 17 or fewer points in the game they lost. Can't really blame the defense for that.

 

[12punch]

Does winning ONE super bowl require luck? Yes.

Plays like the INT at the end of Super Bowl 49 could be considered a lucky break if you look at them by themselves.

But then, Brady has been there SIX TIMES. He was on the wrong end of what would have been universally considered the greatest season in NFL history, thanks to a ridiculous David Tyree catch.

If ranking the great QB's, Brady stands out among them all for two reasons:

1. He has the stats

2. He has the rings

Montana has the rings, but no stats. Marino and Manning have the stats, and 1 combined ring.

Brady has it all, and he looks to be able to play another 2-3 years to add to the stats.

He's not the greatest QB BECAUSE of his 4 super bowls...but those 4 super bowl wins (and 6 appearances) do count..

Minimizing the super bowl wins because of "luck" is just ridiculous.

Why are Marino and Manning grouped as a single entity? If you want to dismiss someone for not winning a ring (which is silly), dismiss Marino. Manning has a ring. He has appeared in three Super Bowls and won one. Why attempt minimize his team accomplishments by combining them with Marino's?

Separate question- in Brady's four Super Bowl seasons his team ranked 8th, 6th, 1st and and 2nd in scoring defense. They were also 4th in the season before the first of the team's two SB losses during Brady's career. If we gave Manning and Marino five seasons each paired with defenses that successful do you think they would have won more Super Bowls?

do I think manning would have won that sb last year with a better defense?

no

 

[12punch]

Does winning ONE super bowl require luck? Yes.

Plays like the INT at the end of Super Bowl 49 could be considered a lucky break if you look at them by themselves.

But then, Brady has been there SIX TIMES. He was on the wrong end of what would have been universally considered the greatest season in NFL history, thanks to a ridiculous David Tyree catch.

If ranking the great QB's, Brady stands out among them all for two reasons:

1. He has the stats

2. He has the rings

Montana has the rings, but no stats. Marino and Manning have the stats, and 1 combined ring.

Brady has it all, and he looks to be able to play another 2-3 years to add to the stats.

He's not the greatest QB BECAUSE of his 4 super bowls...but those 4 super bowl wins (and 6 appearances) do count..

Minimizing the super bowl wins because of "luck" is just ridiculous.

Why are Marino and Manning grouped as a single entity? If you want to dismiss someone for not winning a ring (which is silly), dismiss Marino. Manning has a ring. He has appeared in three Super Bowls and won one. Why attempt minimize his team accomplishments by combining them with Marino's?

Separate question- in Brady's four Super Bowl seasons his team ranked 8th, 6th, 1st and and 2nd in scoring defense. They were also 4th in the season before the first of the team's two SB losses during Brady's career. If we gave Manning and Marino five seasons each paired with defenses that successful do you think they would have won more Super Bowls?

Since you were the one that brought it up . . .

Top 8 defenses in points allowed with Manning at QB:

2002 IND - 7th

2005 IND - 2nd

2007 IND - 1st

2008 IND - 7th

2009 IND - 8th

2012 DEN - 4th

Titles won in those years . . . ZERO.

Marino with Top 8 defenses based on points allowed:

1983 - 1

1984 - 7

1990 - 4

1998 - 1

Titles won in those years . . . ZERO.

I think yudkin just posterized some poor dude

 

[12punch]

Does winning ONE super bowl require luck? Yes.

Plays like the INT at the end of Super Bowl 49 could be considered a lucky break if you look at them by themselves.

But then, Brady has been there SIX TIMES. He was on the wrong end of what would have been universally considered the greatest season in NFL history, thanks to a ridiculous David Tyree catch.

If ranking the great QB's, Brady stands out among them all for two reasons:

1. He has the stats

2. He has the rings

Montana has the rings, but no stats. Marino and Manning have the stats, and 1 combined ring.

Brady has it all, and he looks to be able to play another 2-3 years to add to the stats.

He's not the greatest QB BECAUSE of his 4 super bowls...but those 4 super bowl wins (and 6 appearances) do count..

Minimizing the super bowl wins because of "luck" is just ridiculous.

Why are Marino and Manning grouped as a single entity? If you want to dismiss someone for not winning a ring (which is silly), dismiss Marino. Manning has a ring. He has appeared in three Super Bowls and won one. Why attempt minimize his team accomplishments by combining them with Marino's?

Separate question- in Brady's four Super Bowl seasons his team ranked 8th, 6th, 1st and and 2nd in scoring defense. They were also 4th in the season before the first of the team's two SB losses during Brady's career. If we gave Manning and Marino five seasons each paired with defenses that successful do you think they would have won more Super Bowls?

Since you were the one that brought it up . . .Top 8 defenses in points allowed with Manning at QB:

2002 IND - 7th

2005 IND - 2nd

2007 IND - 1st

2008 IND - 7th

2009 IND - 8th

2012 DEN - 4th

Titles won in those years . . . ZERO.

Marino with Top 8 defenses based on points allowed:

1983 - 1

1984 - 7

1990 - 4

1998 - 1

Titles won in those years . . . ZERO.

To be fair, that leaves out several years.

1999 scored 16 pts in loss

2000 scored 17 pts in loss

2003 scored 14 pts in loss while throwing four interceptions

2004 scored 3 pts in loss

2006 threw 7 interceptions against just 3tds for his only title

2010 scored 17 pts in superbowl loss, threw pick six to end the game

2013 scored 8 pts in superbowl loss

2014 scored 13 pts in loss

So with the exception of 2006, when his defense and kicker actually did drag him to a superbowl, he's either had a top 8 defense, or scored 17 or fewer points in the game they lost. Can't really blame the defense for that.

but to be fair about it, when he threw the 4 picks and the 7 picks his defense probably gave up a lot of points those games

 

[Anarchy99]

Does winning ONE super bowl require luck? Yes.

Plays like the INT at the end of Super Bowl 49 could be considered a lucky break if you look at them by themselves.

But then, Brady has been there SIX TIMES. He was on the wrong end of what would have been universally considered the greatest season in NFL history, thanks to a ridiculous David Tyree catch.

If ranking the great QB's, Brady stands out among them all for two reasons:

1. He has the stats

2. He has the rings

Montana has the rings, but no stats. Marino and Manning have the stats, and 1 combined ring.

Brady has it all, and he looks to be able to play another 2-3 years to add to the stats.

He's not the greatest QB BECAUSE of his 4 super bowls...but those 4 super bowl wins (and 6 appearances) do count..

Minimizing the super bowl wins because of "luck" is just ridiculous.

Why are Marino and Manning grouped as a single entity? If you want to dismiss someone for not winning a ring (which is silly), dismiss Marino. Manning has a ring. He has appeared in three Super Bowls and won one. Why attempt minimize his team accomplishments by combining them with Marino's?

Separate question- in Brady's four Super Bowl seasons his team ranked 8th, 6th, 1st and and 2nd in scoring defense. They were also 4th in the season before the first of the team's two SB losses during Brady's career. If we gave Manning and Marino five seasons each paired with defenses that successful do you think they would have won more Super Bowls?

Since you were the one that brought it up . . .

Top 8 defenses in points allowed with Manning at QB:

2002 IND - 7th

2005 IND - 2nd

2007 IND - 1st

2008 IND - 7th

2009 IND - 8th

2012 DEN - 4th

Titles won in those years . . . ZERO.

Marino with Top 8 defenses based on points allowed:

1983 - 1

1984 - 7

1990 - 4

1998 - 1

Titles won in those years . . . ZERO.

Interesting, didn't know that. Although I also left off all the seasons where the Pats finished ranked highly and the Pats didn't make the Super Bowl, like 2009 (5tth) and a few others were they ranked 9th and 10th.

To make it a fair (although still incomplete) comparison you'd have to compare average defensive ranking during the players' careers. Has anyone done that?

I did something like that a couple years ago. There was not much difference. Rankings are not the best data point, as the difference in rankings could be huge some years over what could be as little as a ppg or thereabouts.

Over the course of their respective careers, the Patriots have allowed 18.7 ppg while the Colts/Broncos have allowed an average of 21.4 ppg. However, I would suggest that much of that difference would be accounted for in playing outdoors with the elements vs. playing indoors in a dome.

If we looked at just the ten best years by each respective team, the Top 10 Patriots defenses allowed an average of 17.9 ppg. The Top 10 Colts/Broncos teams allowed an average of 19.1 ppg. Is 1.2 ppg really going to make the difference in going 4 for 6 in SBs for Brady vs. 1 for 3 in SBs for Manning?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Does winning ONE super bowl require luck? Yes.

Plays like the INT at the end of Super Bowl 49 could be considered a lucky break if you look at them by themselves.

But then, Brady has been there SIX TIMES. He was on the wrong end of what would have been universally considered the greatest season in NFL history, thanks to a ridiculous David Tyree catch.

If ranking the great QB's, Brady stands out among them all for two reasons:

1. He has the stats

2. He has the rings

Montana has the rings, but no stats. Marino and Manning have the stats, and 1 combined ring.

Brady has it all, and he looks to be able to play another 2-3 years to add to the stats.

He's not the greatest QB BECAUSE of his 4 super bowls...but those 4 super bowl wins (and 6 appearances) do count..

Minimizing the super bowl wins because of "luck" is just ridiculous.

Why are Marino and Manning grouped as a single entity? If you want to dismiss someone for not winning a ring (which is silly), dismiss Marino. Manning has a ring. He has appeared in three Super Bowls and won one. Why attempt minimize his team accomplishments by combining them with Marino's?

Separate question- in Brady's four Super Bowl seasons his team ranked 8th, 6th, 1st and and 2nd in scoring defense. They were also 4th in the season before the first of the team's two SB losses during Brady's career. If we gave Manning and Marino five seasons each paired with defenses that successful do you think they would have won more Super Bowls?

Since you were the one that brought it up . . .Top 8 defenses in points allowed with Manning at QB:

2002 IND - 7th

2005 IND - 2nd

2007 IND - 1st

2008 IND - 7th

2009 IND - 8th

2012 DEN - 4th

Titles won in those years . . . ZERO.

Marino with Top 8 defenses based on points allowed:

1983 - 1

1984 - 7

1990 - 4

1998 - 1

Titles won in those years . . . ZERO.

To be fair, that leaves out several years.

1999 scored 16 pts in loss

2000 scored 17 pts in loss

2003 scored 14 pts in loss while throwing four interceptions

2004 scored 3 pts in loss

2006 threw 7 interceptions against just 3tds for his only title

2010 scored 17 pts in superbowl loss, threw pick six to end the game

2013 scored 8 pts in superbowl loss

2014 scored 13 pts in loss

So with the exception of 2006, when his defense and kicker actually did drag him to a superbowl, he's either had a top 8 defense, or scored 17 or fewer points in the game they lost. Can't really blame the defense for that.

Just for fun, let's review Brady's impressive work in leading the Pats to their first Super Bowl from the bostonfred hater perspective. I'm not doing the rest of them because I don't share your pathetic obsession with denigrating great QBs, but .

Game 1: Offense scored only one TD. 16 total points, 13 in regulation, and only 10 before the tuck rule incident. Team wins anyway thanks to defensive effort and fumble negated by officials

Game 2: Injured in the second quarter, leaves without leading the offense to a single point. Team wins anyway thanks to Drew Bledsoe, special teams and defense.

Game 3 (Super Bowl): Offense again scores only one TD and tallies 13 points. Team wins anyway thanks to defensive effort (including defensive score).

Wow. Overwhelming offensive fireworks from Brady. He sure earned that Super Bowl ring and all it means to his legacy.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Does winning ONE super bowl require luck? Yes.

Plays like the INT at the end of Super Bowl 49 could be considered a lucky break if you look at them by themselves.

But then, Brady has been there SIX TIMES. He was on the wrong end of what would have been universally considered the greatest season in NFL history, thanks to a ridiculous David Tyree catch.

If ranking the great QB's, Brady stands out among them all for two reasons:

1. He has the stats

2. He has the rings

Montana has the rings, but no stats. Marino and Manning have the stats, and 1 combined ring.

Brady has it all, and he looks to be able to play another 2-3 years to add to the stats.

He's not the greatest QB BECAUSE of his 4 super bowls...but those 4 super bowl wins (and 6 appearances) do count..

Minimizing the super bowl wins because of "luck" is just ridiculous.

Why are Marino and Manning grouped as a single entity? If you want to dismiss someone for not winning a ring (which is silly), dismiss Marino. Manning has a ring. He has appeared in three Super Bowls and won one. Why attempt minimize his team accomplishments by combining them with Marino's?

Separate question- in Brady's four Super Bowl seasons his team ranked 8th, 6th, 1st and and 2nd in scoring defense. They were also 4th in the season before the first of the team's two SB losses during Brady's career. If we gave Manning and Marino five seasons each paired with defenses that successful do you think they would have won more Super Bowls?

Since you were the one that brought it up . . .

Top 8 defenses in points allowed with Manning at QB:

2002 IND - 7th

2005 IND - 2nd

2007 IND - 1st

2008 IND - 7th

2009 IND - 8th

2012 DEN - 4th

Titles won in those years . . . ZERO.

Marino with Top 8 defenses based on points allowed:

1983 - 1

1984 - 7

1990 - 4

1998 - 1

Titles won in those years . . . ZERO.

Interesting, didn't know that. Although I also left off all the seasons where the Pats finished ranked highly and the Pats didn't make the Super Bowl, like 2009 (5tth) and a few others were they ranked 9th and 10th.

To make it a fair (although still incomplete) comparison you'd have to compare average defensive ranking during the players' careers. Has anyone done that?

I did something like that a couple years ago. There was not much difference. Rankings are not the best data point, as the difference in rankings could be huge some years over what could be as little as a ppg or thereabouts.

Over the course of their respective careers, the Patriots have allowed 18.7 ppg while the Colts/Broncos have allowed an average of 21.4 ppg. However, I would suggest that much of that difference would be accounted for in playing indoors with the elements vs. playing indoors in a dome.

If we looked at just the tem best years by each respective team, the Top 10 Patriots defenses allowed an average of 17.9 ppg. The Top 10 Colts/Broncos teams allowed an average of 19.1 ppg. Is 1.2 ppg really going to make the difference in going 4 for 6 in SBs for Brady vs. 1 for 3 in SBs for Manning?

Cool, thanks. I appreciate the insightful reply.

 

[12punch]

Does winning ONE super bowl require luck? Yes.

Plays like the INT at the end of Super Bowl 49 could be considered a lucky break if you look at them by themselves.

But then, Brady has been there SIX TIMES. He was on the wrong end of what would have been universally considered the greatest season in NFL history, thanks to a ridiculous David Tyree catch.

If ranking the great QB's, Brady stands out among them all for two reasons:

1. He has the stats

2. He has the rings

Montana has the rings, but no stats. Marino and Manning have the stats, and 1 combined ring.

Brady has it all, and he looks to be able to play another 2-3 years to add to the stats.

He's not the greatest QB BECAUSE of his 4 super bowls...but those 4 super bowl wins (and 6 appearances) do count..

Minimizing the super bowl wins because of "luck" is just ridiculous.

Why are Marino and Manning grouped as a single entity? If you want to dismiss someone for not winning a ring (which is silly), dismiss Marino. Manning has a ring. He has appeared in three Super Bowls and won one. Why attempt minimize his team accomplishments by combining them with Marino's?

Separate question- in Brady's four Super Bowl seasons his team ranked 8th, 6th, 1st and and 2nd in scoring defense. They were also 4th in the season before the first of the team's two SB losses during Brady's career. If we gave Manning and Marino five seasons each paired with defenses that successful do you think they would have won more Super Bowls?

Since you were the one that brought it up . . .Top 8 defenses in points allowed with Manning at QB:

2002 IND - 7th

2005 IND - 2nd

2007 IND - 1st

2008 IND - 7th

2009 IND - 8th

2012 DEN - 4th

Titles won in those years . . . ZERO.

Marino with Top 8 defenses based on points allowed:

1983 - 1

1984 - 7

1990 - 4

1998 - 1

Titles won in those years . . . ZERO.

To be fair, that leaves out several years.

1999 scored 16 pts in loss

2000 scored 17 pts in loss

2003 scored 14 pts in loss while throwing four interceptions

2004 scored 3 pts in loss

2006 threw 7 interceptions against just 3tds for his only title

2010 scored 17 pts in superbowl loss, threw pick six to end the game

2013 scored 8 pts in superbowl loss

2014 scored 13 pts in loss

So with the exception of 2006, when his defense and kicker actually did drag him to a superbowl, he's either had a top 8 defense, or scored 17 or fewer points in the game they lost. Can't really blame the defense for that.

Just for fun, let's review Brady's impressive work in leading the Pats to their first Super Bowl from the bostonfred hater perspective. I'm not doing the rest of them because I don't share your pathetic obsession with denigrating great QBs, but .

Game 1: Offense scored only one TD. 16 total points, 13 in regulation, and only 10 before the tuck rule incident. Team wins anyway thanks to defensive effort and fumble negated by officials

Game 2: Injured in the second quarter, leaves without leading the offense to a single point. Team wins anyway thanks to Drew Bledsoe, special teams and defense.

Game 3 (Super Bowl): Offense again scores only one TD and tallies 13 points. Team wins anyway thanks to defensive effort (including defensive score).

Wow. Overwhelming offensive fireworks from Brady. He sure earned that Super Bowl ring and all it means to his legacy.

did he throw 7 picks?

 

[bostonfred]

Separate question- in Brady's four Super Bowl seasons his team ranked 8th, 6th, 1st and and 2nd in scoring defense. They were also 4th in the season before the first of the team's two SB losses during Brady's career. If we gave Manning and Marino five seasons each paired with defenses that successful do you think they would have won more Super Bowls?

look, I'm answering your question. You asked if manning would have won more superbowls if he had a top eight defense like brady did each year. Yudkin answered with all the years that manning actually did have a top eight defense. I then filled in every single year that he didn't have a top eight defense and the number of points he scored. Together, that's literally every single season he made it to the playoffs. so if he didn't win when he had a top right defense, and he scored 17 or fewer points in every single one of his playoff losses the other years, I think the answer is, no, he probably wouldn't have won another title with a better defense.

That's not a "hater perspective". It just seems that way because the facts suck for you.

 

[pats3in4]

Super Bowl 16:

Montana goes 14/22 for 157 yards and a TD. 49ers defense sacks Ken Anderson 5 times, picks him off once inside the 49ers 10yd line, picks him off a 2nd time to start a FG drive on the Bengals 22yd line, has a huge 4th down goalline stand and forces a Collinsworth fumble inside the 49ers 10yd line. Just before halftime, 49ers kick off to the Bengals who fumble it with 5 seconds to go in the half, giving the 49ers a gift 3 points. All this in a 5pt game, albeit the final TD by Cincinnati came very late. The 49ers defense and the Bengals' largess played a monster role in that outcome.

Super Bowl 19:

Montana played outstanding, going 24/35 for 331 yards, 3 passing and 1 rushing TD. 49ers also rushed for 211 yards and had the ball for over 37 minutes. Marino, quick release and all, was sacked 4 times and picked off twice.

Super Bowl 23:

Probably Montana's best SB considering the other team didn't completely crap the bed. Montana went 23/36 for 357 yards and 2 TDs, the latter the famous John Taylor come-from-behind TD. The Bengals played SF tough for the most part, sacking Montana 3 times and recovering two forced fumbles. Esiason had a poor game, going 11/25 for 144 yards, one pick and sacked 5 times, but the rest of his team covered for him for the first 57 minutes.

Super Bowl 24:

Montana was awesome...against a D that didn't bother to show up *at all*. The Broncos were letting guys run free through the secondary, particularly Jerry Rice. So freaking embarrassing. Elway and crew were completely overwhelmed against that great 49ers D. That 89 team was one of history's best.

---

And when the Montana 49ers had to face some tough defenses in the post-season:

1985: 3 points in a loss in the Meadowlands (Hi, Bill Belichick! How's that first year as a D-Coordinator?).

1986: 3 points in an obliteration in the Meadowlands (Hey, Bill!). Montana got KTFO by Jim Burt on an LT pick 6.

1987: 3 points at home before getting benched for Young. Threw a pick 6. This 49ers team was the title favorite heading into January.

1990: 13 points at home in a bad-beat loss to the Giants (Bill, you again?) when Craig fumbled late, after Montana left the game injured.

---

The point of all this is that while Montana's SB record is impeccable, he had help. A lot of help. Either in the form of his defense, his running game, the other team laying a giant egg or a combination of all 3. How would he have done against the Pats' opponents is anyone's guess. How would Brady have done against the those defenseless Dolphins or Broncos and the imploding '81 Bengals is also anyone's guess. And both Montana and Brady have had some bad playoff exits. So the comparison between the two is a lot closer than die-hard Montana fans want to admit.

 

[ShamrockPride]

^^^ For every die hard Joe lover there's a die hard Brady lover. If/until Brady wins a fifth, this debate will bear no fruit. And if he doesn't... This debate will NEVER bear any fruit.