Originally Posted by
ortforshort
The question is not whether Tampa would have been a good team, whatever that means, if they had a good quarterback.
The question is how the league has reacted to Brady taking that team to a super bowl and winning it.
The league has obviously reacted very strongly. You've got three of the top five QBs in the league making power plays on their owners and management. You've got the trickle down effect of having such instability at the top of the QB pile which has caused massive turbulence in the QB waters this offseason. Brady's influence cannot be factored out of these happenings, in fact, he's had the major influence in it.
The NFL QB game has now gotten very similar to the NBA superstar game overnight.
Brady = LeBron - where they go, championships follow - only Brady doesn't get hurt
Mahomes = Steph - two magicians who don't need to change teams to display their greatness, they already have
KD, Harden, Kawhi = Watson, Wilson, Rogers - the Brady, LeBron wannabes where KD, Harden and Kawhi have already used the power and now Watson, Wilson and Rogers want to use it. Wouldn't be happening if Brady hadn't done what he did.
The first and the last of these three similarities are something new this offseason.
And you guys are trying to insist that Brady winning the SuperBowl with Tampa had nothing to do with that.