If the Patriots win Super Bowl 46, is Tom Brady the G.O.A.T?

[Champ]

Im sorry but you can't compare stats between Brady and QBs for awhile ago. Back then you could literally beat the fuck out of the WR and get away with it.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Not quite sure where living in a world of if's and but's is going to get you, but have fun playing with the endless possibilities.

If Dwight Clark drops that catch, then Montana only wins three Superbowls.

There, now we're even. Not hard to play that game.

Are we saying that a WR making a play doesn't equate to a kicker making a play? In the end isn't it the QB putting the team in the right position to get the game winning points? Isn't winning by 3 the same as winning by 7 in a Superbowl? This is an asinine approach to analyzing sports.

I'm lol'ing at how people are trying to discredit Brady for putting his team in a position to win the game, like a quarterback is supposed to do. It's gotten to the point where we are now using "yeah but if one player on a team messes up, suddenly Brady's not that great!". Brilliance.

I think you are misunderstanding my argument, but to be fair, I re read what I wrote and it comes off arrogant and troll like, but I didn't mean it that way.

My point is not that Brady isn't a great player. My point isn't that this is not a worthy discussion. He is a great player and he may be the best ever.

My point is that there is a thin line between good and great, and for some reason, in football when it comes to QB's, we credit/discredit players for shit that they have no control over.

Peyton Manning is viewed as less successful than Brady and not clutch, despite the fact his kicker failed him on more than one occasion in big spots. Brady's kicker has always come through. ALWAYS. When you are dissecting players at this elite level, that stuff matters. What sense does it make to punish one guy because he stood on a sideline while someone else missed a kick, and credit the other guy because he stood on a sideline while his teammate made a kick?

Somebody brought up Flacco. Reed dropped the ball, and Cundiff missed a chip shot. Because of factors completely out of the control of Flacco & Brady, Brady is now being discussed as an immortal, and Flacco is still a guy who "can't win". Can't we be more sophisticated than that? We only treat QB's this way, and it's maddening (to a lesser extent, we do this to NFL head coaches and NBA stars as well).

It's not about playing "what if". It's about analyzing what happened. If Vinatieri misses all of those kicks, how do we view Brady? We'd be calling him a loser who can't get the job done. Instead of a guy who led solid, safe, game winning drives in Super Bowls, he'd be known as a guy who couldn't get his team in the end zone when it mattered. And that isn't fair either!

This is why I largely hate QB discussions. It always comes back to rings. Rings, rings, rings. Instead of a small part of the picture, it's weighted at like 90%. It's dumb, but it's never going to change.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Another example. Kurt Warner.

1-2 in the Super Bowl. Pretty much everyone agrees he was a great player and a certain Hall of Famer.

SB loss #1, Warner leads his team down two scores in the fourth Q, and ties the game with a TD pass with about a minute left. He never sees the field again, because his defense allowed a FG at the gun.

SB loss #2, Warner leads a TD that puts the Cardinals ahead with about a minute left. Again, his defense lets him down, allowing a score with seconds remaining. Warner gets back on the field, but only for one desperation attempt with a few seconds left.

Now, what didn't Warner do to put his teams in a position to win? He did just as much as Brady did Sunday, and both men stood on the sideline while the defense determined the outcome. Josh Reed dropped a pass, Santonio Holmes made a circus catch. What do Brady or Warner have to do with that?

It just drives me nuts. I mean, if Warner is 3-0, he's in this conversation. Should he be viewed any lesser because he's 1-2 in this over analyzed, over scrutinized, over credited game?

If you want to make the argument Brady is the best ever, that's fine, and you can say he put his team in position to win, and I will agree, and that's good, but the fact remains that his legacy would be different based on those kicks. Is that fair? I don't know.

 

[ram29jackson]

yes, no one is calling Brady bad. He just doesnt have the sexy wins.

he put his team in position to win...but he didnt...win the game/put it in his hands/decide the final outcome/be the playmaker who made the play.

..he's...just the guy who beat Jake Delhomme by 3......LOL....cause the kick was good

 

[Realist]

I didn't bother reading this shit but i'll give my two pennies on this.

Even if he loses this game he's gonna go down as one of the all time greats. What i believe is fogging everyone's judgement is the hatred for him. I hate Brady as much as the next guy but I give him a lot of credit from how far he's come. A late round draft pick, replacing a "franchise" QB. I say franchise because Bledsoe was not amazing by any means but he got the job done week in and week out. Anyway, I'm sure if we had the internet during the Era of Montana we would be having the same debate.

I read somewhere that people find personal self gratification in the fact to hate successful people and I honestly believe that is how most of us are due to the fact that Brady is doing this and people like me who are fans of perenial losers are jealous. I wouldn't even be having this debate if Brady was a Jag.

Again jut my two cents. And yes i did vote he isn't gonna be the greatest of all time cause Montana is my favorite of all time so i'll be stuck with that until a Jaguar QB comes even close but i'm not gonna hold my breath.

I don't think anyone is debating that. The question was is he going to be THE greatest.

Brady was also never throwing to the greatest player in the history of the game at any position. Or anyone even remotely relevant for that matter.

 

[G-men]

:rofl:

thats an incredibly poor argument for quality vs quantity. It means you arent paying attention to what I said. And if you arent talking about Montana,then dont post his stats LOL

Aikman won games with larger margins while he was under center, he has 3 Super Bowl wins as well. Brady just has alot of passing yards while never dominating a SB opponent. As of now, they are even in post season dominance..but Aikman doesnt have a SB loss...

This is the worst argument for the greatness of a quarterback. Was Aikman the only guy on the field for those three Super Bowls because you are giving him sole credit for those victories. You can never discredit a quarterback for having a lot of passing yards. That is his job, to get yardage, touchdowns, and wins. Brady has done both of those things better than Aikman throughout his career. Anyone trying to argue Aikman > Brady is just hopeless to argue with at this point.

 

[JOHNNYTHECLOWN]

Just trolling on purpose or what? I don't think anyone has Troy Aikman in their top five, let alone ahead of Brady.


Brady
5 superbowl appearances in 10 years
96.4 QB Rating
300 td/115 INT
24 4th quarter comebacks
34 game winning drives
16-5 record in playoffs
124-35 record

Montana
4 superbowl appearances in 12 years
92.3 QB Rating
273 td/139 int
31 4th quarter comebacks
33 game winning drives
16-7 record in playoffs
117-47 record
Aikman
3 superbowl appearances in 12 years
81.6 QB rating
165 TD/141 INT
16 4th quarter comebacks
21 game winning drives
11-4 record in playoffs
94-71 record

:nope:

Stats don't lie.

 

[Aso]

Brady never threw a 99 yard interception to a LB just as the half ended in the Superbowl.

 

[killgod]

I find it amusing how

"running the whole clock in a 2 min drill to set up a game winning FG at the last second"

is being criticized because he didn't...

"be aggressive and throw a TD to force his defence to stop the other team"



Brady is literally being criticized for managing the game perfectly by running drives that win the game, not just give you a chance to.

This is a bigger part (than the kicker) as to why he has rings folks, but keep saying football games are all about one play.

 

[Len B]

W2B's two posts

Your re-assessed post of what you meant originally is much better. Arguing who the best player is at a position when it's the most team oriented sport is a fair beef as to why the system is incredibly hard to rank.

I agree Warner is a great QB, but let's be honest. He threw two interception touchdowns before the half putting his team behind in the game, as well starting the year after that 0-6, with 3 touchdowns and 11 interceptions before turning the team over to Bulger.

I would say Warner is criminally underrated, but he's not in the upper level of Brady/Montana.

Guys like Peyton Manning also threw interception touchdowns when they were trying to lead their team from behind, which hurts their case. If you want to be the best, you cannot be the person who single handedly throws the game away. Not to mention he was shut down by the Patriots on more than one occasion. Manning is not someone who's post season play was affected by factors out of his control.

I never saw Montana play, so I never will compare Brady vs. Montana, because to me that's like comparing Ty Cobb to Ted Williams.

 

[Len B]

Im sorry but you can't compare stats between Brady and QBs for awhile ago. Back then you could literally beat the fuck out of the WR and get away with it.

The rules to benefit offenses were installed in 2005 after the Patriots manhandled the Colts WR's in the 2004 divisional round and won 20-3.

Prior to 2005 Tom Brady was 9-0 in the playoffs, had three Superbowls and had a 1.815 TD/INT ratio with his best receiver being Troy Brown and Deion Branch in his first four years starting in the league.

Montana had a 1.822 TD/INT ratio his first four years starting.

I agree that you can't compare the bullshit stats these days to the 1980's, but it's not like Brady was Joe Average prior to this.

 

[FirstTimer]

If you want to be the best, you cannot be the person who single handedly throws the game away.

Yeah because Brady has never thrown a game clinching INT or pick 6 before.

:smh:

:yao: at this Brady playoff mystique when the Pats just won their first playoff games in 3 years.

 

[FirstTimer]

I find it amusing how

"running the whole clock in a 2 min drill to set up a game winning FG at the last second"

is being criticized because he didn't...

"be aggressive and throw a TD to force his defence to stop the other team"

No one with a brain here is doing that. The best posts in this thread have been W2B and he is simply saying while Brady deserves credit for doing that we don't have to be over simplistic idiots about evaluating the QB position.

 

[Len B]

Yeah because Brady has never thrown a game clinching INT or pick 6 before.

:smh:

:yao: at this Brady playoff mystique when the Pats just won their first playoff games in 3 years.

He's never done it in the Superbowl, which is apparently the only measure we're going by if we're going to let Montana's bad games slip, as Spydr said.

Brady does have his "ugh" moment vs. Denver, though.

 

[FirstTimer]

He's never done it in the Superbowl, which is apparently the only measure we're going by if we're going to compare Montana to Brady, as Spydr said.

Brady vs Montana is a stupid argument IMO because neither is the GOAT anyways.

 

[Len B]

Brady vs Montana is a stupid argument IMO because neither is the GOAT anyways.

Who you got? Interesting discussion so I'm curious.

 

[FirstTimer]

He's never done it in the Superbowl, which is apparently the only measure we're going by if we're going to let Montana's bad games slip, as Spydr said.

Brady does have his "ugh" moment vs. Denver, though.

And his game sealing INT vs the Colts in 2006. His abysmal game vs Baltimore in 2009 as well. I guess in 2010 he was alright against the Jets but he really looked overmatched that game.

 

[FirstTimer]

Who you got? Interesting discussion so I'm curious.

Manning or Unitas. I waffle between the two.

 

[Len B]

And his game sealing INT vs the Colts in 2006. His abysmal game vs Baltimore in 2009 as well. I guess in 2010 he was alright against the Jets but he really looked overmatched that game.

In 2006 he had to go 80 yards in 56 seconds, and 45 yards in 25 seconds, but for the sake of argument I'll say correct, he threw a pick with the game on the line. Not sure how many QB's will come out of that situation smelling like roses for a touchdown, though. That game was lost when Manning won it, rightfully.

2009 was awful. If you can name a WR other than Randy Moss on that team I'll be impressed (hint: Julian Edelman was the #2 WR that game). Welker went down in week 17 and that was just a lost season. It was the year Galloway was supposed to be Stallworth, and we all know how that work as he got hit in the head on more passes than he actually caught. The Ravens were the much better team.

Tom Brady's real WTF moments always come vs. the Chargers. That's his "Manning vs. Patriots" team.

 

[FirstTimer]

he threw a pick with the game on the line. Not sure how many QB's will come out of that situation smelling like roses for a touchdown, though.

Ok He threw a pick with a game on the line.

Thanks.

If you can name a WR other than Randy Moss on that team

Excuse me while I tune up my smallest violin for Tom Brady having Randy Moss on his team.

And here come the flood of excuses from Patriot fans.

This is where the Brady argument takes a turn to idiocy.

When Brady wins he did it with nothing...then..when he loses and he has the 2nd greatest WR ever on his squad we are challenged to name another WR he had...but I thought Brady could win with garbage at WR?

It can't be both ways. You can't hold up Brady winning with crazy eyed WR's then when he has Moss discount it because we can't name another guy on the roster. At least be consistent with the argument.

This is what W2B is talking about when he says simple arguments are stupid and counter productive to an incredibly complicated position like QB.