The Super Bowl has one winner and a league full of losers every year. Montana has a ton of Super Bowl losses. Just not any where he put his team in position to have a chance to win it. He was all or nothing. And produced nothing a lot more of the time. Which isn't a knock on him...every QB does. It's a big league. But let's not pretend it's a one game season. Montana had 11 years when, for reasons of being on the bench...or injury...or just not getting the job done...he lost the Super Bowl.'pittstownkiller said:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Why Tom Brady may be the best of the best (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter fantasizing
- Start date
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Wut?
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
What are you talking about?
Why showcase your ignorance? Remain silent and learn. It's better for everyone that way.
It's an epidemic.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
I was simply stating he hasn't notched a QB rating in the 90+ range in some time and I get Big Ben's SB rating...I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. Brady had a tremendous outing on Saturday but he also missed an entire season a few years ago and his team won 11 games without him that season, that's a fact. I like Brady, he deserves his place in Canton, that said I don't believe he has the skill set that others have had, several of which don't even own SB rings...it is a 22 man starting team in these games. QB is one out of 22 positions. Brady, Montana, Young, all great QBs but IMO they had a lot of success due to the team and organization around them. Not saying they aren't in the talk for best ever but I don't know that Brady is the best ever, in fact I would say no. He is an era where 5,000 yds passing is becoming common, where RBs are starting to become extinct, where Fullbacks have become dinosaurs, where you throw to control the clock...everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Last edited by a moderator:
David Yudkin
Footballguy
The point was that winning or losing and how well a QB did is not always measured by a single metric like passer rating. I'm sure most teams and fans would rather their QB threw the ball away than threw it into triple coverage and risk an INT. But throwing the ball away will hurt QB ratings. You picked an number of 89 to illustrate that Brady hadn't played well. I picked a number of 22 to illustrate that a QB didn't play well. By Big Ben won a title with that number while Brady's team lost. So you played better? Brady or Big Ben?
This is what's wrong with America.There are many valid reasons to believe Brady is the best QB of his era but this is not one of them.Brady gets credit for beating the Denver Broncos while Drew Brees travels to San Francisco to face an infinitely superior defense, loses his top RB on the first series, has to deal with a ridiculous turnover deficit and loses one of the greatest games in history by less than a touchdown. Rodgers loses to the NY Giants and their all-pro pass rush while leading his team in running yards. Football is a team sport.Even if this were a valid argument, in the last 2 years we have seen Brady go one and done (and not done as in 'get it done', done as in 'done for the year') while Brees and Rodgers have each won superbowl titles. Brady has won 3 superbowls in the last 10 years? His last win was 8 years ago, he won the year before that as well, but in 2002 Brad Johnson was the QB who 'got it done'. Ben Roethlisberger (the owner of the lowest winning passer rating in superbowl history) has the same number of rings in the last 10 years as Brady. Is he superior to Brees, Rodgers and Peyton?'fantasizing said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
I was just saying Brady has not had a monster day stats wise in the post season (before Saturday) in some time...you can take that however you like. He hasn't won a Super Bowl since the 2004 season either...it's 2012 now. If the question is all things being the same meaning system, players surrounded with, etc...I would rather have Big Ben for 1 game.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Love the post but I think it is Brady 3 Big Ben 2...
Sorry, still talking 'in the last 10 years' as per the OP
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
well played
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I'll take your advice going forward. BTW, who were you before you became Zeff?
Tau837
Footballguy
Yes, but Montana won 2 Super Bowls before Rice joined the team. If you want to see an example of doing more with less, check out the roster of Montana's first Super Bowl team.Montana and Unitas (in some order) are the best QBs of all time. Everyone else begins slotting into the second tier.'Run It Up said:
GregR
Footballguy
I know what you're saying, but a big segment of sports fans just don't think that way. They use the drama surrounding a game as some kind of multiplier for a player's performance in it. Trying to convince otherwise is tilting at windmills.
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
I'm not a Pats fan but agree Brady is the best QB since Montana. That said, you can easily make an argument for Manning, Brees and Rodgers.
And Brees and Rodgers hardly choked this weekend and also didn't get to play the Broncos. Brees was ridiculous against a great D, and I think it's safe to say that Brady won't have 6 TDs against the Ravens next week.
It's too bad the Saints didn't win homefield advantage in the NFC, because I don't think anyone could have beat them at home. The Packers have no excuse and got outplayed and outhit by a hungrier Giants D.
And Brees and Rodgers hardly choked this weekend and also didn't get to play the Broncos. Brees was ridiculous against a great D, and I think it's safe to say that Brady won't have 6 TDs against the Ravens next week.
It's too bad the Saints didn't win homefield advantage in the NFC, because I don't think anyone could have beat them at home. The Packers have no excuse and got outplayed and outhit by a hungrier Giants D.
proninja
Footballguy
Not for that. . ./bitterseahawksfan
NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
Nobody loves Tommyboy more than I, but I must dissagree with some of the above. Yes, Brady has IMHO clearly been the best over the last 10 years.For those argueing GOAT I would say certainly not yet (maybe worthy to discuss in 5 years when he is done) and since goat is so subjective I doubt it will\can ever be settled.Always gets it done in the playoffs? No, he is human and makes mistakes just like everyone else (see Manning, Brees, Rodgers etc). Not all that impressed with a big win over Den; let's see how he does against Bal and then if he plays well enough to win we will see how he does againts NY or SF. (I hope we get to find out!)'fantasizing said:
what about Marino??
Carver
Footballguy
Best QB to ever star in a trim-spa commercial?
bostonfred
Footballguy
How true is this? Sure, brady has improved his deep ball, and does a better job on check with mes, but that's a matter of experience. Most qbs improve aspects of tneir game like this. The tom brady who made the gme winning drive in 2001 against the rams was incredibly impressive as a rookie, the tom brady who led the league in tds in 2002 was also impressive, the tom brady who outduelled both comvps (manning and mcnair) in the playoffs then won a last team with the ball wins game against the panthers in the superbowl in 2003 was pretty impresive, and the tom brady who lead the patriots to a 9-0 playoff record while leading the best of those championship teams to a third superbowl in four years was also impressive. If anything, the legend of bradys ascension comes from his dropoff in 2005 and 2006, when guys like reche caldwell replaced an already sparse wr crew of troy brown, david patten and deion branch. The following year, moss and welker join the team and brady starts destroying records, breaking the td, int and yardage records in each of his three fully healthy years. Bradys numbers were still very good with a desolate wr crew. Don't let the huge leap in his numbers when he finally got competent receivers, coupled with losses in a superbowl and two playoff games, fool you into thinking he changed. He has always been on this path to greatness.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Name a qb better than brady, and a rational criteria for choosing them. The list is getting pretty short. If you like career numbers, pick favre over brady. If you prefer awards to performance, you can still barely make an argument for manning. If you like superbowls, pick montana. If you favor old school qb play, maybe otto graham or unitas.
But with brady crushing single season records, and potentially two wins away from a fifth superbowl appearance and fourth win, we can knock montana off the list. With over 5000 yards this year, the career numbers argument may fall by the wayside. With manning missing a season, and bradys four best years being better than each of mannings four mvp years, the mvp award argument is shot. If brady wins the superbowl this year or ever again in his career, and thats a huge if, pretty much leaves the grumpy old men shaking their fists and saying johnny u was better than any of these whippersnappers.
In the meantime, sit back and enjoy the opportunity to witness the greatest player at the most important position in the best sport.
But with brady crushing single season records, and potentially two wins away from a fifth superbowl appearance and fourth win, we can knock montana off the list. With over 5000 yards this year, the career numbers argument may fall by the wayside. With manning missing a season, and bradys four best years being better than each of mannings four mvp years, the mvp award argument is shot. If brady wins the superbowl this year or ever again in his career, and thats a huge if, pretty much leaves the grumpy old men shaking their fists and saying johnny u was better than any of these whippersnappers.
In the meantime, sit back and enjoy the opportunity to witness the greatest player at the most important position in the best sport.
ninerfanatic492000
Footballguy
Jimmy Johnson said they could fine every team/coach and that the pats were made the example b/c they are the flagship and thus the message much stronger to the entire nfl'pittstownkiller said:
Tau837
Footballguy
Not as of today. Montana (6086 total yards, 45 passing TDs, 21 interceptions, 95.6 passer rating in 23 games) was quite a bit better in the postseason than Brady (4848 total yards, 36 passing yards, 17 interceptions, 89.1 passer rating in 20 games).Montana also has a very slight edge in awards, although they are amazingly similar there:Montana: 2 MVPs, 3 SBMVPs, 1 POY, 1 OPOY, 1 CPOY, 3 1st team All Pro selections, 2 2nd team All Pro selections, 8 Pro Bowl selectionsBrady: 2 MVPs, 2 SBMVPs, 1 POY, 2 OPOYs, 1 CPOY, 2 1st team All Pro selections, 1 2nd team All Pro selection, 7 Pro Bowl selectionsThe numbers are very close and will almost certainly end up favoring Brady where they don't already. If Brady maintains a high level play for at least a couple more seasons and ultimately wins another Super Bowl, he will deserve to join Montana and Unitas in the top tier of all time QBs.
Not sure about this. It is a much more interesting comparison now than it was two or three years ago. However, Brady currently still trails in the areas of statistics and honors/awards by a lot. I don't agree that most people will selectively compare seasons like you do (Brady's four best vs. Manning's four best).Brady has built enough of a body of work with dominant statistical regular seasons to go along with the Super Bowls, that he is clearly one of the top several QBs of all time. Right now, I think you would find plenty of people who would favor Brady in this comparison, but I think the majority would still say Manning ranks higher. However, Brady is in position to make up whatever perceived gaps there are if he plays 3+ more years at a high level and/or wins another Super Bowl.
Kenny Powers
Footballguy
Yeah, I dont think Gronk, Welker, or Hernandez would even start for a lot of teams.'Run It Up said:
No it isn't.
Run It Up
Footballguy
Coming into this year not at all, this years pre-draft discussion was hilariously inaccurate (normally its bad, but this year it was terrible) "Oh yeah Hakeem Nicks is done, gotta go with manningham" "Jamaal Charles, GOAT..." "Welker's Career is over" "Gotta take Vick #1 overall". I think even now that no team would ever pay/trade anywhere near the value they represents for the Patriots. 5 Months ago people were proclaiming Welkers career was over, 5 months ago people were proclaiming that Gronk and Hernandez (and Woodhead, Branch, BJGE) were one trick ponies.
Kenny Powers
Footballguy
Theyre all top talents. I think you could argue Welker needs a good QB or offensive system to feature him and let him flourish, but theyre all very good NFL talents.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Brady is a walking example of how overrated the number of Super Bowl wins a QB has is as a stat.
Tom Brady 2006-2012 is an infinitely better player than Tom Brady 2001-2004, yet "early Brady" has 3 Super Bowl wins and "current Brady" has 0. The only reason for that is because early Brady played with an elite defense and current Brady typically doesn't.
Is there anyone that believes that Tom Brady in his second year was better than the defense disector that has walked out onto the field on Sundays the last few years? There's no way. Yet, if Tom Brady had retired after the 2004 season and been replaced with another player that did exactly what Brady has done from 2006-2012, 75% of people would probably consider Brady the better player because he had the rings.
The people that focus heavily on rings when deciding on a QB's legacy are just one gigantic hypocritical contradiction.
Tom Brady 2006-2012 is an infinitely better player than Tom Brady 2001-2004, yet "early Brady" has 3 Super Bowl wins and "current Brady" has 0. The only reason for that is because early Brady played with an elite defense and current Brady typically doesn't.
Is there anyone that believes that Tom Brady in his second year was better than the defense disector that has walked out onto the field on Sundays the last few years? There's no way. Yet, if Tom Brady had retired after the 2004 season and been replaced with another player that did exactly what Brady has done from 2006-2012, 75% of people would probably consider Brady the better player because he had the rings.
The people that focus heavily on rings when deciding on a QB's legacy are just one gigantic hypocritical contradiction.
I use it as a multipler as well. I think weighting performance in superbowls vs playoffs vs regular season is valid - not only due to the big stage - mostly due to the caliber of opponent. I would also like to know how this audience considers performance v titles. FBGs is a highly educated board (especially compared to the rest of the internet), so there are a lot of educated posters.
Brady is absolutely insane right now. It's like 2007, except without Randy Moss. Real NFL fans appreciate this. Pats fans will argue he was better when the Pats won the superbowl (3 times) due to the defense. Brady/NFL fans know he is on an absolute other level right now and are looking forward to his performances on 22/1 and 5/2 as religious experiences.He reminds me of Peyton in 2004 except better,
Run It Up
Footballguy
I believe that Welker/Gronk/Hernandez (lesser extent Woodhead) are all elite talents, but I also believe im in the minority on that.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
The debate on how talented Brady's receivers and teammates are comes up all the time. IMO, these guys succeeded for three reasons, the system, the play calling, and Brady. Some of them had plus ability for certain things, but other than Moss, I don't think his receivers were elite. Gronkowski is another guy that seems to be a true talent. Other than that, no one really wows you.Everyone else over the years, to me, seems to be at least partially a product of the system. But what about someone like Welker? Welker is the perfect fir FOR NEW ENGLAND. I think he would do ok on another team, but nor 120 catches good. He and Brady are on another plane when it comes to what route to run and where to go. Maybe he'd have that same connection with another QB someplace else. Maybe he could find a team that would utilize the slot as much and as well. But doing a quick mental search through the league, I am finding a hard time coming up with a destination where Welker would be as productive and I am struggling to find one.The Pats need the right pieces to fit together, so it's not that any guy can come in and be productive. Look at Ochocinco. He was a HOF candidate from his days in CIN (and had he clicked in NE could have improved his chances). Yet he has done nothing. Branch never really put up huge numbers (52.6 yds/gm), and his numbers dipped in SEA (46 yds/gm).Troy Brown had one big year and another good one, but the rest of the time was a role player. Givens had one or two decent years, but certainly nothing noteworthy. Twent years from now, few people will remember any of NE's wide receviers other than Moss and Welker.Since Brady became a starter, only 10 players have caught 100 passes for NE . . .1 Wes Welker 554 2 Troy Brown 337 3 Deion Branch 312 4 Randy Moss 259 5 Ben Watson 167 6 David Patten 165 7 David Givens 158 8 Rob Gronkowski 132 9 Aaron Hernandez 124 10 Daniel Graham 120 Hernandez has fared well, but I am inclined to say that that is due to the way teams have to defend him. With Welker and Gronkowski drawing coverage, Hernandez gets mismatches. If he were a single TE on another team, I'm not sure he would be putting up the same numbers.To be clear, while I think the system they are running in NE has contributed to their success and big offensive numbers, I don't think that makes Brady a system QB. I think he would have done very well wherever he was in whatever system he was asked to run.
dgreen
Footballguy
It's actually 11 players. You're missing Kevin Faulk.And, 11 players would rank 10th (tied with 4 other teams) since 2001.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I only listed WR and TE (obviously). Of guys that played in the past decade or so, GMs would take Welker, Moss, Gronkowski, and Hernandez . . . but collectively those guys really haven't played all that much with Brady (ten total seasons between them).
dgreen
Footballguy
That's fine. I just didn't get why you said "only 10 players" as if that wasn't very many. It seems about average. Not sure if it's the best metric to support your point. I don't know how those four players "GMs would take" compares to the rest of the league either.I'd tend to agree that Brady hasn't been working with a top 5 group during his career. But, I don't think they've been trash either. My guess is he's been working with a pretty average group. Currently, I'd say he has an above average group.
Tanner9919
Footballguy
good post, fair points, all of them......but, since spygate, Brady is ( now after beating Denver) just 3-3 in the postseason...'bostonfred said:
they haven't been past the divisional round since 2007.
Brady is great.. I'm not one of those that claims Manning is better - Manning has a terrible postseason record - while Brady just wins..
and you can take all of the in-season stats you want and put a bow on them..
Brady became a starter because of a fluke injury to Wally Pipp, aka Drew Bledsoe..
he made it to his first SB because of a fluke 'tuck rule' that no one has ever hear of..
BB's cheating may have contributed to Brady winning 3 SB's..they destroyed tapes so there clearly was something to the whole mess..we'll never know the whole thing..
to his credit, Brady did drive his team on two game winning drives late in the Superbowl victories, and won a few of them based on the leg of an all-time great kicker..
the Pats D came up short late in one other game..
Brady's stats since 2007 are more a case of BB saying 'we're going to show you we don't need to cheat to win games' than anything else..like chest-pumping 'I'll show you....'
but, it was also to mask a seriously deficient defense that hasn't been able to stop anyone for years now..so part of his greatness and 'Tom Terrific' mania is because the offensive coaching staff
sees that their defense can't win games and they need to score 35+ pts per week in order to win..until Rex came along, the Jets were doormats, while Dolphins, and Bills were also lousy teams, so it wasn't hard for Brady to sharpen his tools against such pathetic defenses 6X/yr..
and as for this season, 2011, the Pats still have not beaten a team with a winning record..and doubtful they beat Ravens on sunday.
it just bothers me that the ONLY reason he has Giselle is because of Wally Pipp aka Drew Bledsoe
..
Last edited by a moderator:
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Not sure what this says (if anything) and whether folks would argue for or against Brady on this one, but here are the total number of players that have had 1,000 yards receiving in a year for each team . . .
Code:
IND 15ARI 13GB 12PIT 12STL 11CIN 10DAL 10DEN 10NO 10NE 9NYG 9KC 8TB 8BUF 7CAR 7DET 6SD 6TEN 6ATL 5BAL 5HOU 5JAX 5MIN 5SEA 5WAS 5CLE 4NYJ 4OAK 4PHI 4MIA 3SF 3CHI 2Kenny Powers
Footballguy
Yeah, he was awesome at Florida and had Tebow throwing him the ball. Im not surprised by what he's done in the NFL.
GoFishTN
Footballguy
Is he still great and "the best" if Vinatieri misses those field goals?
bostonfred
Footballguy
Someone in this thread compared him unfavorably to montana because tyree caught a ball with his helmet. You're right that the playoff argument is overrated. It can't be the onoy thing you look at when discussing a players greatness, any more than rush yards or yards per completion. In a vacuum, all stats are meaningless.But when you look at the greatness of tom brady, you can look at a lot more than his 9-0 start in the playoffs. Three straight superbowl wins in his first four years and leading the league in tds during the other year is incredible, but what about tying the all time td record with 6 tds in a game? Or helping deion branch of all people set the receptions record?
Brady holds the triple crown of breaking the yards, int and td records? Thats a jerry rice level of dominance, even more than marino.
If you want to talk competitiveness, the patriots set the records for consecutive home wins, wins, playoff wins and single season wins, all under tom brady.
If you want to talk prolific, the 2007 pats were the greatest offense in nfl history. Can you name their leading rusher without looking?
If you want awards, name a player with multiple league mvps and multiple superbowl mvps. All from different years.
The list goes on. Tom brady has established himself as the greatest ever.
Carver
Footballguy
GregR
Footballguy
I guess I'd say weighting for caliber of opponents is something you do regardless of when in the season the game takes place. When talking about including playoff results with a player's career, I wouldn't consider that kind of adjustment to do with playoffs, it just has to do with the opponent. Just like Derek Anderson doesn't get as much credit in my eyes for his 2007 season as he would if he'd played tougher opponents and defenses. (Edit to add: Though granted, if you are lumping seasons together, you don't have that granularity of how good their opposition was, so maybe then you could justify just the opponent part.)Which just leaves "the big stage" as you say. Which personally to me might change my view of their performance by... I don't know. 5%? In other words, almost negligible when judging individual player talent.I need to be able to convince myself that "the big stage" actually has a significant effect before I'm going to give it significant weight. When I look at just regular season results, there is huge variation in how teams play even against the same opponent in the same year. Patriots and Bills have a pair of great examples. The 2003 Bills beat the Patriots 31-0 one game and lost to them 31-0 in the other game. This year the Pats led 21-0, then threw 4 interceptions and lost the game. The Bills in their other meeting also led 21-0 and then also threw 4 interceptions and lost the game. When teams have have such huge swings in performance as normal variation, how can one say that a player doing well or not was due to the stress of a big game and not due to normal variation? I don't think anyone can.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
I also think when people discuss "big games" they tend to focus exclusively on postseason games. But there are a lot of big regular season games that end up deciding playoff berths, division titles, playoff seeds, etc. Those games should really be included in any analysis of big games, but they tend to be ignored because (a) we are conditioned to treat playoff games as being bigger than any regular season games and (b) it's easy to find postseason game logs and stats, but not easy to find "big game" game logs and stats if that is to include big regular season games.IMO the general view, at least in this forum, tends to overrate postseason performance and underrate regular season performance.
Iwannabeacowboybaby!
Footballguy
I don't think it'll ever be as easy as just scratching Montana off the list.I still don't understand why so many people argue about who's the best when you're comparing players who are currently retired and players still playing.Montana is the best Qb I ever saw play. I've watched since the mid 70s so that includes guys like Bradshaw, Staubach, Marino, Farve, and Elway.Let's see what happens with the rest of Brady's career. Let's see what happens with Peyton Manning. If I were a Patriot fan, I would just enjoy the ride because it doesn't last forever, just ask Colt fans.
Similar threads
