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

[Len B]

What do you expect when other people start pinpointimg to kickers, etc.? Leave the discussion to who has come through in what situation, and not start breaking it down on to the tiniest hair. It'd impossible to break down the qb position the way a lot try.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

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

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.

Let me be clear, i'm not saying Warner is the GOAT. Not even close. I was demonstrating the thin line between how QB's are perceived, and how too much emphasis is put on the Super Bowl game.

Joe Montana's entire legacy is built on 4-0 in the Super Bowl. There is a myth of his herculean post season performances as a result. Because he went 4-0, nobody remembers the three year stretch of garbo from 85-87 (smack dab in the prime years of the stars of that team) where the 49ers couldnt win a playoff game.

85 vs Giants: 26/47, 0 TD's, 1 INT, 65.6 QB rating
86 vs Giants: 8/15, 0 TD's, 2 INT, 35.2 QB rating, Jim Burt hit him so hard people thought he was dead
87 vs Vikings: 12/26, 0 TD's, 1 INT, 42.0 QB rating

And let's not forget the last high profile stinker of "Joe Cool's" career, the AFC Championship game loss to the Bills in '93: 9/23, 105 yards, 1 INT.

'Joe Cool' wasn't so cool when those great Giants teams of the era were smacking him in the mouth and knocking him out of the playoffs three times.

And then we have this...

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GJFOBI1cZaM?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GJFOBI1cZaM?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

Lewis Billups dropped this Montana pass, which hit him directly in the chest. James Harrison caught Warner's pass, which hit him directly in the chest. Both players threw awful passes.

The point? If Montana is 3-1 instead of the mythical 4-0, we perceive him in a different way, we focus on the Billups INT, the bad, bad losses to the Giants,
etc. But because he's 4-0, nobody cares or remembers how bad he was in spots. He's Joe Cool!

Look, i'm not trying to denigrate Joe Montana, who is one of the best of all time. I'm trying to demonstrate how the Super Bowl is ridiculously over credited in both directions of establishing legacies.

We are hearing chatter that if the Giants win Sunday, that it might be time to say Eli is better than Peyton. Are you fucking kidding me?! This would be based on 2-0 vs 1-1. Nothing more.

To me, win or lose, the way I view Eli will not change. He's still the same player. He's still not better than Marino, Warner, Peyton, or a bunch of other guys who don't have two SB wins. It's laughable. He's Eli Manning.

Just like win or lose Sunday, Brady doesn't move up or down in my mind, either. A win won't put him over the top, and a loss doesn't knock him down a peg. Why would one fucking game change anything?

Stop over rating the Super Bowl, is basically my point. People wait around for the result of that game, and then slot QB's. Will Eli become one of the greatest of all time Sunday? Um, no. It's silly.

 

[killgod]

There needs to be 2 seperate distictions.

Most accomplished QB of all time is more fitting, this win wouldn't be about greatness as much as it's about achievement.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

There needs to be 2 seperate distictions.

Most accomplished QB of all time is more fitting, this win wouldn't be about greatness as much as it's about achievement.

Agreed.

With that said, it's all about performance, too.

Because of the rest of his resume, if Brady went out there and threw for 400 yards, 5 TD's and had a game winning drive, well, then that's not some run-of-the-mill SB victory. That's a resume enhancer.

If Brady has a reasonably good game, and throws a key INT, and they lose by three, it shouldn't be lolBrady, but you know it will be.

I don't know why i'm fighting this battle, because QB's are judged by 60 minutes in the SB, and the game result. It will never change.

 

[DSpydr84]

Neal Dahlen has 5 Superbowl rings with San Francisco as a player and coach, and 2 with Denver as a General Manager.

He's the GOAT

 

[mgoblue2290]

Neal Dahlen has 5 Superbowl rings with San Francisco as a player and coach, and 2 with Denver as a General Manager.

He's the GOAT

Thanks for that.

I think we all get it at this point that SB wins alone should not decide how good you are. It is a combination of regular season and post season play, along with the players around you and opponents you faced.

 

[Hasselbeck]

I have to comment about those who compare the '11 Colts situation with the year Brady went down with a torn ACL. That's not a reflection of if Brady is better than Manning or not.. that's a reflection of how woeful Bill Polian was at keeping the shelves filled with talent in Indy. The Pats front office was light years ahead of the Colts at stockpiling talent in the event a star like Brady went down with an injury for prolonged talent.

That's in no way a knock against Brady. It's like those who want to take away from Aaron Rodgers for what Matt Flynn has done in two career starts. And it's a very foolish foolish argument.

 

[NAHSTE]

He's not even the greatest of this time.

 

[G-men]

Let me be clear, i'm not saying Warner is the GOAT. Not even close. I was demonstrating the thin line between how QB's are perceived, and how too much emphasis is put on the Super Bowl game.

Joe Montana's entire legacy is built on 4-0 in the Super Bowl. There is a myth of his herculean post season performances as a result. Because he went 4-0, nobody remembers the three year stretch of garbo from 85-87 (smack dab in the prime years of the stars of that team) where the 49ers couldnt win a playoff game.

85 vs Giants: 26/47, 0 TD's, 1 INT, 65.6 QB rating
86 vs Giants: 8/15, 0 TD's, 2 INT, 35.2 QB rating, Jim Burt hit him so hard people thought he was dead
87 vs Vikings: 12/26, 0 TD's, 1 INT, 42.0 QB rating

And let's not forget the last high profile stinker of "Joe Cool's" career, the AFC Championship game loss to the Bills in '93: 9/23, 105 yards, 1 INT.

'Joe Cool' wasn't so cool when those great Giants teams of the era were smacking him in the mouth and knocking him out of the playoffs three times.

And then we have this...

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GJFOBI1cZaM?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GJFOBI1cZaM?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

Lewis Billups dropped this Montana pass, which hit him directly in the chest. James Harrison caught Warner's pass, which hit him directly in the chest. Both players threw awful passes.

The point? If Montana is 3-1 instead of the mythical 4-0, we perceive him in a different way, we focus on the Billups INT, the bad, bad losses to the Giants,
etc. But because he's 4-0, nobody cares or remembers how bad he was in spots. He's Joe Cool!

Look, i'm not trying to denigrate Joe Montana, who is one of the best of all time. I'm trying to demonstrate how the Super Bowl is ridiculously over credited in both directions of establishing legacies.

We are hearing chatter that if the Giants win Sunday, that it might be time to say Eli is better than Peyton. Are you fucking kidding me?! This would be based on 2-0 vs 1-1. Nothing more.

To me, win or lose, the way I view Eli will not change. He's still the same player. He's still not better than Marino, Warner, Peyton, or a bunch of other guys who don't have two SB wins. It's laughable. He's Eli Manning.

Just like win or lose Sunday, Brady doesn't move up or down in my mind, either. A win won't put him over the top, and a loss doesn't knock him down a peg. Why would one fucking game change anything?

Stop over rating the Super Bowl, is basically my point. People wait around for the result of that game, and then slot QB's. Will Eli become one of the greatest of all time Sunday? Um, no. It's silly.

One of the best posts I've seen here in a while.

 

[FirstTimer]

I also think this is the first time in the history of football discussion where a QB's play relating to a loss was some what trying to be excused because he "only had Randy Moss" to throw to.

WUT?!

 

[Len B]

I also think this is the first time in the history of football discussion where a QB's play relating to a loss was some what trying to be excused because he "only had Randy Moss" to throw to.

WUT?!

Randy Moss is known for quitting on teams when things go wrong. Go look at the end of his 2009 season, and you'll notice an incredible dip in his yards per game towards the end of the 2009 season, and then as you know he was shipped out instantly in the 2010 season.

His last 100 yard game came in week 9 of 2009, then was limited to redzone production after that, and then his entire career just went down the drain. I think the game against Baltimore was the end of Randy Moss, and is probably why the Patriots never took a flier on him when he was begging to come back this year.


A Randy Moss who isn't trying, a college QB in Edelman, and a special team player Sam Aiken were his targets that game, against an incredible defense. I'm not taking Brady off the hook for the loss, but to expect him to go flawless in his post season career is a bit much. I already admitted that the Chargers were Brady's WTF moments, and he's lucky in those games the rest of the team came to play.

That said, I still agree with what Warner says. As soon as you start trying to break down this position by best ever, ridiculous statements are going to be made. You can find a positive and negative for every elite QB at that level if you dig deep enough.

 

[Hasselbeck]

He's not even the greatest of this time.

I'd say that's debatable.

Manning is two years older than Brady.. Brady played in all of one game in his rookie season and in all of one quarter in the 2008 season. For all intents and purposes Brady has played 10 years of NFL football as a starting QB, making the Super Bowl in FIVE of these years.

I'd say Manning has had better weapons on offense for the majority of his career as well. Marvin Harrison in his prime. Reggie Wayne in his prime. It wasn't until the past 4 or 5 years where Brady began to get weapons of his own.. a motivated Randy Moss in his prime, Wes Welker, Gronkowski, etc.

I think the two are extremely close together in terms of greatness, but as always what ultimately separates two players from one another is hardware. Brady has 3 rings, Peyton has 1. After Sunday, Brady may have 4.. and if that happens.. I think he deserves serious consideration for being the best QB of this era and of all-time.

I won't even get into the ridiculousness of saying Adam Vinatieri is solely responsible for 2 of his 3 championships either (I don't think you said this NAHSTE).. let's say Vinatieri misses FG's against St. Louis and Carolina - the game is headed to OT. Who the hell knows what happens then? Maybe Kurt Warner and/or Jake Delhomme lead their teams to a championship.. or maybe Brady throws a dagger to Terry Glenn/Deion Branch and the Patriots win. The fact is - Brady GOT the Patriots into FG range to begin with.

 

[mgoblue2290]

If Brady has 4 Super Bowls, then he is above Peyton Manning. That isn't a knock on Peyton at all, but you just can't over look Brady's post season dominance and his regular season dominance.

 

[ram29jackson]

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.

LOL its not that he's being criticized, its just the thing keeping him from being a GoaT.
he doesnt have any highlights in history like Joe does,that show that game winning pass etc

 

[ram29jackson]

To me, win or lose, the way I view Eli will not change. He's still the same player. He's still not better than Marino, Warner, Peyton, or a bunch of other guys who don't have two SB wins. It's laughable. He's Eli Manning.

I disagree,..a win definitely puts him above Marino and Warner in a post season effectivness category...and he has beaten Favre, Brady and Rodgers in the post season ,thats a nice resume.

2-0 is definitely better then 1-1 in a SB...thats 2 very big, Gawdy, bejeweled, huge, rings and money that say "yep, I did that" "those are mine"

 

[ram29jackson]

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.

who said anything about < or > ? i'm basically saying, meh =


whats Aikman not being the only guy on the field got to do with it ?
the QB is still the one in charge and the ball has to leave his hands regardless how good his teammates are.

 

[Tailback U]

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.

It is interesting to think about considering how fascinated people are with Tim Tebow. Maybe it's because they love the underdog aspect that comes with Tebow?

Brady is one of the best quarterbacks of all time. I wouldn't argue with someone if they said he is the best quarterback of all time. I'm fine with other people thinking that way because Brady has earned the right to be in the discussion. No doubt about it.

He's also filthy rich, really, really good looking, and fucks super models when he gets home after winning another super bowl.

If you don't like him, you are just a jealous prick.

And I'm a Raiders fan.

 

[ram29jackson]

It is interesting to think about considering how . No doubt about it.

He's also filthy rich, really, really good looking, and fucks super models when he gets home after winning another super bowl.

If you don't like him, you are just a jealous prick.

And I'm a Raiders fan.

no one is bringing up or cares about his personal life and no one dislikes him..

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

Brady was in the Aikman , Young , Bradshaw , Staubach tier like it or not.

This would be the first time he won a SB as the catalyst and main reason for the teams success. So he'd jump ahead of the others into the Elway/Manning/Marino etc level.

Short answer is no. Montana won 4 and 2 without Rice and other big offensive names attached to him. Was always the catalyst to that teams success. Only Manning is in the same breath of completely mastering an offense and field/game management. His H2H matchup victories against Marino,Young and Elway including that MNF as a Chief are icing on the GOAT cake.
Nobodys perfect but Montana is as close to it as any modern QB.

He'd have to be MVP to be in the conversation. Even then the convo ends with no.

 

[Tailback U]

no one is bringing up or cares about his personal life and no one dislikes him..

A lot of people dislike him or want to discredit him one way or another.

All I'm saying is that if you've watched him play football over the last 10 years, it's easy to see why he is a hall of fame quarterback and maybe the best ever.

I'm 26 but my memory sucks and I barely remember Joe Montana or Dan Marino carving up secondaries. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are two of the greatest quarterbacks I've ever seen and will probably ever see.

However you want to rank them is up to you. I don't really bother with it.