Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    238

    Why Tom Brady is Technically the Greatest Quarterback at This Time (Asterisk)

    It does have a little to do with luck. But as Buffalo Bills coach, Marv Levy, used to say ... sometimes, you make your own luck.

    This is not a rant about Spygate or Deflategate. Yet, I won't let Patriot fans or pro-Brady writers forget that (whether they are fans or merely trying to be objective). I don't really care about passing production because the eras are too different. At one time, cornerbacks could clothesline the receiver, which today would be a 10 or 15 yard penalty, or a penalty at the spot of the penalty. These days, the NFL rule-book promotes the passing game--and it shows. I'm not arguing that it's "bad"--you just can't compare passing numbers from different eras. You can compare, nonetheless, whether that player won.

    Part of the reason that Tom Brady has 5 Super Bowl rings is because the Patriots did not move on from Brady. They have committed to him as their quarterback, unlike the San Francisco 49ers--who moved on from Joe Montana in favor of Steve Young, who led the 49ers to their 5th Super Bowl win. Had the 49ers committed to Montana--he would have 5 or 6 rings. Brady just won his 5th Super Bowl at the age of 39, when the 49ers had moved on from Montana when he was 36.

    To some extent, this does seem like Roger Maris breaking Babe Ruth's single-season homerun record and getting an asterisk.

    Or in another case, the Oakland Raiders traded away Kenny Stabler at the age of 34 before the 1980 season, where the Raiders would win the Super Bowl with Jim Plunkett. As much as people have loved Jim Plunkett, the Raiders probably would have won with Stabler. And again with Stabler--after the Raiders took Marcus Allen, before ultimately benching Allen for Bo Jackson.

    But this is also why many have shouted down Raiders owner Al Davis--no commitment to star players. I do think that, if Al Davis had committed to Stabler and Allen--the Raiders would have won, at least, 5 Super Bowls by now.
    Last edited by tinkertoys; 02-10-2017 at 05:22 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,801
    I hate the patriots. And I hate Brady. So take these comments as such.

    But I really dont think he's the goat that everyone is making him out to be. He is definitely a great QB. But how can he be considered the goat when rings is the benchmark used for this? Had that stupid tuck rule never existed, there is one less super bowl he wins. I know it was a rule. But it's not like it's a rule he was playing under the assumption of... in other words, Brady wasn't thinking "I'll tuck the ball so it's not a fumble if I get hit right now."

    Then you get into luck. They're 2-1 as far as luck is concerned. The giants helmet catch is the one they should have won, but lost. The Seattle and falcons ganes were wins the should have lost. If one of those games turns out different, then where would they be. No tuck and loss to atl or sea- they're at 3 wins. Still the goat?

    And before anyone replies- that those things did happen- how much of it was Brady's doing? Did Brandy cause those things to happen? No. so how can he be the goat because of them?...

    And I'm not even on the topic of the team yet. This team is just a winning team. Obviously,part of it is due to Brady. But they were great with Bledsoe before fun. Played very good with garapolo. Played great with Matt cassell for crying out loud! In hindsight, how good is cassell? Not as good as he looked on the patriots? Then there's your answer... Brady probably isn't as good as he is on the patriots.

    That brings us to why the patriots are so good. Part great QB. Part great coach. Part cheating. Take away the cheating, and I think they win maybe 1 or 2 fewer championships.

    Oh and as for this year... even the fans helped out. The pats fan who pulled the fire alarm at the hotel the steelers were staying at can be proud of himself. There's nothing like playing the biggest game of the season after getting a half night sleep. The steekers looked slow and lethargic? No... really? Must be cause Brady is the goat! Lol

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Corona, Ca
    Posts
    10,261
    He's the GOAT. I'm not gonna lie.

    Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,457
    I am not quite ready to call him the GOAT. He is in a great system, with a really good team, and a (man, I hate to admit this) really good (that was all I could muster) coach. Also, I think it is unfair to measure greatness by rings. Rings require a team, yes, a competent QB, but the team is what wins championships. Moreover, as pointed out, the rules are more QB/pass friendly than they were in the past. I also think that a QB who is supposedly the GOAT should not require plays on his wrist to run the offense. Montana did not have the plays on his wrist, Stabler did not have the plays on his wrist, Bradshaw did not have the plays on his wrist, and Peyton did not have the plays on his wrist. Indeed, "back in the day" the QBs acted like another coach and called their own plays (Peyton may be the modern day iteration of those types of QBs). NFL history is also littered with really good QBs who may not have won a SB (Fran Tarkenton and Archie Manning come to mind immediately). Would they be in the conversation if they won a super bowl? Maybe. What about Jim Kelly who took his team to four consecutive super bowls. Yes, the Bills lost, but that is quite a feat to even get that far four times in a row.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    LA 2 Da Bay
    Posts
    6,472
    Again, good call to post your diary entry. There isn't like thread for non-Raiders topics in this forum.

    I'm pretty sure media members will keep Brady out of the HoF thanks to your efforts.
    RAIDERS. ARE. BACK.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Posts
    3,283
    All measurables lead to Brady.

    You can spin it to say luck, era changes, ******** rules, bad calls, and a collapse.

    Stats
    Rings
    He has everything to be considered the goat

    While it remains subjective... I have yet to find a truly objective eye to look at this and pick anyone else.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Indy Raider View Post
    All measurables lead to Brady.

    You can spin it to say luck, era changes, ******** rules, bad calls, and a collapse.

    Stats
    Rings
    He has everything to be considered the goat

    While it remains subjective... I have yet to find a truly objective eye to look at this and pick anyone else.
    Why does there have to be a goat? Can't he just be listed in the great QBs. Other than rings- which is indicative of the team/coaching as much as the QB- other QBs have been just as good.

    Peyton, for example, has a better career completion percentage and is I'm reading it right, has 10,000 more career yards. 20 yards per game more for his career. More TDs too (and more INTs).

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    6,405
    He's the goat period, no debate, and he doesn't appear to be slowing down...

    Paired with the best GM in the league who just so happens to be a defensive genius, and you have a winning combo. Montana had the front office, an entire team of badasses, no FA era, and a game changing coach as well. HE was surrounded by better players for the most part compared to Tom. What he and Beli are doing in the era of free agency is unreal.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,735
    cant be the goat when they change the rule book to help your stats

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Raider Nation
    Posts
    2,249
    why the hell is there a Brady thread in here?What's that all about?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Altus, Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,744
    Quote Originally Posted by PHIL MAGROIN View Post
    why the hell is there a Brady thread in here?What's that all about?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    713
    Rankings of "the greatest of all time" based on Super Bowl wins is ridiculous. On that criteria, Marino sucked, Bradshaw is the 2nd best QB ever (tied with Montana) and Plunkett is the 5th best QB ever.

    I love Plunkett but he was on some great Raider teams. And I'm not saying Brady isn't great, but take away Belicheck and most if not all of those rings go away too.
    The autumn wind is a Raider

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Pedaso View Post
    Rankings of "the greatest of all time" based on Super Bowl wins is ridiculous. On that criteria, Marino sucked, Bradshaw is the 2nd best QB ever (tied with Montana) and Plunkett is the 5th best QB ever.

    I love Plunkett but he was on some great Raider teams. And I'm not saying Brady isn't great, but take away Belicheck and most if not all of those rings go away too.
    IMHO....if you plug in Brady into any of the aforementioned spots, he still wins.....and maybe add a win or two to those franchises. The man is one hell of a talent. I really don't like comparing players from different eras. It's not a fair comparison, but since we brought it up.....

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,801
    Quote Originally Posted by dbacknick View Post
    IMHO....if you plug in Brady into any of the aforementioned spots, he still wins.....and maybe add a win or two to those franchises. The man is one hell of a talent. I really don't like comparing players from different eras. It's not a fair comparison, but since we brought it up.....
    Saying Brady would have won more games than plunket means you're missing the point. The point is, Brady was on a better team than some of the other great QBs. The patriots made Matt cassell look good. Point being, playing on the patriots makes you look better. Cassell is not as good as he looked on the pats... so logic would determine that Brady is not as good as he looks on the pats.

    How do you think Peyton manning or drew Brees would have done had they been playing on the patriots instead of Brady?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    Quote Originally Posted by FarOutIos View Post
    Saying Brady would have won more games than plunket means you're missing the point. The point is, Brady was on a better team than some of the other great QBs. The patriots made Matt cassell look good. Point being, playing on the patriots makes you look better. Cassell is not as good as he looked on the pats... so logic would determine that Brady is not as good as he looks on the pats.

    How do you think Peyton manning or drew Brees would have done had they been playing on the patriots instead of Brady?
    Are you saying that Manning and Brees would have been more successful than Brady? I'm not sure if they would have accomplished what he has done. Yes, the Pats would be successful without Brady, but there's no way they win all of those SB's without him.....maybe not even get there.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •