Every game involves some element of bad breaks, good breaks and luck. Brady has had some games he's lost because of bad luck as well. You've made all of these arguments before, and they aren't very impressive. Who knows, maybe the Chiefs will win the Super Bowl this year and Mahomes will jump ahead of Rodgers in number of Super Bowls won. Does that make him better than Rodgers? Not yet. I'm done with this subject now, much to the relief of many others I'm sure.
Tom Brady! Best of all time?
- Thread starter Titanium999
- Start date
If an analytical framework shows a person or team getting consistently lucky over a twenty year period the Occam’s Razor answer is that the framework is flawed and missing some element.
It is particularly ironic to have this conversation on a NUFB board when NU is consistently dismissed as being lucky (sp+ anyone?)
Part of the reason NE defenses were good is that the O took some pressure off of them. Did a good job limiting turnovers, didn’t force the D to face short fields, good on TOP, scored points so the opponent had to take risks, etc. All of which helps the D. Offensive and Defensive performance aren’t entirely independent.
Another reason the Patriots D was good was that Brady took less money than he could have demanded and restructured his contract regularly so they had more money to spend on other players. Doesn’t show up in a direct QB statistic necessarily but flipping that contribution around and dismissing it as he’s lucky to have good teammates misses the point.
Same basic point that good players wanted to come to NE at least in part due to Brady. So some talent came to the Patriots over other options and some times took less money to do so. So that was a clear advantage but Brady (and the broader organization) didn’t just get lucky as you’d call it. Earned privilege basically.
I grew up in WI and want the Packers to win. And I generally think who’s the goat discussions are too subjective to be definitive. But I find the dismissing of his case because he’s lucky to be laughable. Leadership and excellence and results across so many teammates and offensive coaches for so many years speaks for itself.
Football is a true team game. QB is the most important position yes but need a team to win. QBs do not have win and losses tracked like pitchers or goalies. Brady is an all time great but there is no such thing as a clear GOAT. This term is used way too much and too easily.
They're not arguments. They're what happened in those games, and those 3 events literally were the exact difference between a win and loss for Brady.
This is incorrect. They do track wins by QB. Hence the NFL records TB 12 holds.
Every regular season and postseason record Tom Brady holds
The Tom Brady era has officially come to an end. The greatest player in the history of the New England Patriots will be a Patriot no more. On Tuesday, Brady made it clear that he won’t be returning to New England. The 42-year-old will now wear a different jersey for the first time in his 20-year...
www.nbcsports.com
It’s difficult to line up quarterbacks across era, because the game has changed so much. (Would Montana have thrived in an RPO world? Maybe not.)
It’s even difficult to compare contemporaries, because the context definitely matters.
Would Phillip Rivers — an unselfish (or, anyway, really godly) dude who may have made the same concessions as Brady did for salaries — have won a few or several Super Bowls with Belichik instead of hardly any playoff games with (I looked it up) Schottenheimer and Norv and ‘Mike McCoy’ and Lynn? I’m not sure, but he would have gotten at least one.
So, I think it’s dumb to call one guy the best ever. You just can’t. (You can’t in baseball. The majority would say Tiger and MJ in their sports, though the Nicklaus/Bron folks have great arguments.)
It’s fun to argue. (What about Rocky Marciano? He whooped Joe Louis’ ass. What about Rocky Lombardi? He whooped Peyton Ramsey’s ass.)
All that said, anybody who doesn’t have Brady in the top ten is very very very stupid.
Super Bowls as the end-all, be-all are not a good measure. Bradshaw’s career TD-INT was 212:210 (!) and his career completion percentage was 52%! The game has changed.
(Greg Cook played 11 games for the Bengals in 1969 and then got hurt. Bengals fans imagine that they were the Steelers if only he stayed healthy. He did have a more productive career than Connor Cook, though Connor made much for $$ and has a career playoff start.)
Neither the internet nor the anonymous coach liked it as much as I did, however, because I can’t find it anywhere.
It’s even difficult to compare contemporaries, because the context definitely matters.
Would Phillip Rivers — an unselfish (or, anyway, really godly) dude who may have made the same concessions as Brady did for salaries — have won a few or several Super Bowls with Belichik instead of hardly any playoff games with (I looked it up) Schottenheimer and Norv and ‘Mike McCoy’ and Lynn? I’m not sure, but he would have gotten at least one.
So, I think it’s dumb to call one guy the best ever. You just can’t. (You can’t in baseball. The majority would say Tiger and MJ in their sports, though the Nicklaus/Bron folks have great arguments.)
It’s fun to argue. (What about Rocky Marciano? He whooped Joe Louis’ ass. What about Rocky Lombardi? He whooped Peyton Ramsey’s ass.)
All that said, anybody who doesn’t have Brady in the top ten is very very very stupid.
Super Bowls as the end-all, be-all are not a good measure. Bradshaw’s career TD-INT was 212:210 (!) and his career completion percentage was 52%! The game has changed.
(Greg Cook played 11 games for the Bengals in 1969 and then got hurt. Bengals fans imagine that they were the Steelers if only he stayed healthy. He did have a more productive career than Connor Cook, though Connor made much for $$ and has a career playoff start.)
At some point in the last five years, some tv commentator quoted some head coach or some offensive coordinator as saying “geometry never has a bad day”. I like that line.
Neither the internet nor the anonymous coach liked it as much as I did, however, because I can’t find it anywhere.
Last edited:
If Dee Ford doesn't line up offsides on the play that Brady threw the would be game ending pick, if Brady didn't benefit from the "tuck" rule, and if Pete Carrol gave the ball to Marshawn Lynch on the goal line for the go ahead score, what would Brady's legacy be right now?
He had absolutely NOTHING to do with any one of those plays, and every one of those plays directly affected the final score of the game in Brady's favor.
If David Tyree doesn’t have the last catch of his NFL career *on his helmet*, Brady has seven rings today.
Brady has had both good and bad luck.
You’re arguing he’s simply not the best ever, right? Or are you arguing he’s not top five? Top ten? Top twenty? Worse than Cutler? Worse than McNown?
I'm arguing that using rings as an argument for whether or not he's the GOAT is stupid because in 3 (4 if you count the Tyree catch) the game was a decided on plays he had absolutely NO control over. Zero. Zilch
...Yet the narrative is that he "won" those games because he's such an insane competitor
Just got this sent to me:
Here are Aaron Rodger's 8 playoff losses, in order:
Defense gave up 45 points
Defense gave up 37 points
Led game tying drive, never got ball again
Led game tying drive, never got ball again
Led game tying drive, never got ball again
Defense gave up 44 points
Defense gave up 37 points
If you gave Rogers the defenses that Brady had over the course of their careers, the narrative is way different.
Ultimately, you’re going on a week now because you think Rodgers is better than Brady? I agree.
The guy who thought Super Bowl wins were the definitive also thinks pitcher’s wins are definitive, so, I mean...
Another Brady victory you can chalk up to Belichick. And another Rodgers loss to chalk up to his coach not trusting him to convert a 4th and goal with the game on the line. What luck! Imagine Brady letting his coach take him off the field in that situation? Guess that helps explain 33-11 versus 11-9,
I was shocked when Rodgers attempted that throw on third and goal. An absolute failure to play to the situation.
Brady had a weak second half, but that final play of the first was just spectacular.
Case closed. The GOAT, no question. You simply don’t, at the age of FOURTY-THREE, take on a new team that hasn’t been to the playoffs in 13 years and bring them to your 10th personal Super Bowl, without being the GOAT. At this point, no valid arguments can be made that he isn’t. If you don’t like him...fine...but admit what is obvious. Nobody has brought more out of their teammates for such a long period of time as Brady has.
While I think there is a lot of Brady hate, I think part of this argument is that you can't just judge a QB by how the team does. Of course, it's not the whole picture, but ask Fitz what makes a good QB, and you'll get the same answer - winner. Brady is so damn good at winning and leading a team.
3 straight road wins to take a team to the SB that hasn’t sniffed it in forever.
I know if the late flag on the PI didn’t come out, if the Coach didn’t commit a brain fart and kick the FG, if Aaron would have run it for the easy TD instead of forced the throw. If the 2 point conversation hadn’t been dropped.
Damn is this guy lucky! LOL.
One win away from making it a non question even if it already should be.
I know if the late flag on the PI didn’t come out, if the Coach didn’t commit a brain fart and kick the FG, if Aaron would have run it for the easy TD instead of forced the throw. If the 2 point conversation hadn’t been dropped.
Damn is this guy lucky! LOL.
One win away from making it a non question even if it already should be.
And that is what matters. NU fans of all people should understand that winning trumps flashy play.
Brady might very well be the best of all time, but the Bucks' defense really bailed him out for his three 2nd-half interceptions today. (Granted, Brady played a spectacular first half to give them their commanding lead.)
Brady is great no question. One the best all time. You can't clearly call anyone the GOAT. It is always debatable. Saying it is not debatable is ignorant.
You clearly have something against him. His personal accolades AND team accolades FAR surpass those of any other. To ignore both his personal and team accomplishments, much less his ability to prove he wasn’t simply a system quarterback (the biggest knock the detractors always had) is ignorant. If this season hasn’t proved his case, nothing will. Nobody has done what he’s done, or done it for this long with this many different players. He makes his team better, which also makes him better.
Are you and the kid from Holland one in the same? Related or just something that makes it’s way through the watering holes in the fine city of Holland. Seems like you both have a strong dislike for TB12.
Saying there is no clear GOAT shows nothing against Brady or any other great QB. Saying there is a clear GOAT in any sport is impossible. That does not mean I have something against anyone. I am a huge Jordan fan and believe he is the greatest but realize that is debatable.
Don't forget if they had called the Bucs DB for that little hold when Rodgers threw the game away with :30 left in the first half! More bad luck for Rodgers - he'd be the greatest if he was just Tom Brady.
How is calling him great and one of the best all time show that I have something against him?? Just because I don't believe he or anybody is clearly the greatest.
You make your argument, and it’s a good one. But it’s not the end of story slam dunk you think it is. And it does a terrible disservice to the great ones that did not have Brady’s singularly unique time, place and circumstance. I think 24 put it best. An NFL QB’s W-L record is relevant to their ranking. But it does not define them one way or another without regard to their individual attributes.
Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson had all time great HOF careers. Their winning percentages did not hold them back. Just like Jim Kelly and Terry Bradshaw settled into their rightful place in history notwithstanding their Super Bowl records.
Brady’s W-L record gives him a clear edge in comparing him to others. But it’s his individual skills that get him in the GOAT discussion.
See...that’s kind of the thing. He done it over multiple eras...with a vast amount of different teammates (and WRs!). Nobody has done or accomplished what he has. It’s not even debatable.
I like how people have a subjective opinion and then say it is not even debatable. If there ever was a debatable topic it is who is the greatest of all time in any sport. Football being one of the most debatable as it has the most players making up the team.
I hate the wins/rings argument. I never hated on Brady’s ability to read defenses, his knowledge of X’s and O’s, and his longevity that makes him arguably the best and most people’s pick for the best. Never called him lucky. Go back and actually read my posts. I argue against using wins to define a fb player.
Last edited:
2 were arm punts. Evans dropped a couple huge plays too.
Do you have an opinion on the best ever to play QB?
We’re not debating who is the most accomplished NFL QB. Brady wins that distinction. We’re debating who is the best to play the game. I see a clear distinction between the two. Brady is in the latter discussion as well. He may win that distinction too. But to limit the discussion to the accomplishments he has been a part of is nonsense. Woody Hayes is the most accomplished coach in OSU history. But he couldn’t hold Meyer’s jock on his best day. Like Brady, many of Hayes’ accomplishments were a consequence of time, place and circumstance.
I have spent 40 years working in the NFL. In my opinion the front office and head coach are the 2 most important factors in any NFL team’s success. Archie Manning was Patrick Mahomes decades ago. But he played for a bottom of the barrel organization—-not the Chiefs. Time, place and circumstance are the only real differences in comparing those 2.
GOUNUII
I get accused of being a Brady hater as I do not agree that he is the clear cut GOAT. I am a believer that there is no such thing as too many variables come into play in team sports. Sorry if this offends the Brady lovers/worshipers. Football is consider by many to be the ultimate team sport.
He sailed a few balls, which are always dangerous, but the Evans ball probably should have been caught.
I think it’s really close between a few people but I’d say Marino. I think you have the options of Brady, Marino, Rodgers, Manning. Obviously there are great qbs from previous decades but the qb position is so different compared to then it’s not fair to compare them to the “modern” qb. Mahomes has the ability to get himself in that conversation.
Marino’s release is really what separates it for me. The thing is so quick. Also the stats he put up look like modern day numbers. The gaps between him and others during the 80’s numbers wise is impressive.
You’re completely entitled to think Brady is the best and I understand that argument I just personally hate the wins/Super Bowl argument in fb. If he was most other qb’s he wouldn’t be getting credit for Sunday’s win imo. 280, 3TD, and 3INT. Isn’t an awesome stat line. There have been mediocre qbs on good teams that win a SB. Or at least make it there.
Like I said if you wanna argue the numbers Brady has put up as well as where he does well on tape then fine. I just hate the wins argument in FB. Too much of a team game. Wins matter to a degree but they’re not what makes you the best.
Does anybody on this board remember guys like John Elway, Steve Young, Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana? It’s very hard to compare QBs from this century to guys from decades past because the league has become pass happy but any conversation of the all time best QBs would be incomplete without these guys being part of the conversation. It’s not as clear cut as some want to make it out to be.
Sure let’s go best by decade imo
50’s Otto Graham, Baugh, Tittle
60’s Unitas, Dawson, Starr
70’s Staubach, Tarkenton, Bradshaw
80’s Marino, Montana, Fouts
90’s Favre, Elway, Young
2000’s Brady, Manning, Mcnabb
2010’s Rodgers, Brees, Wilson
If you played in two decades I kept you slotted in one decade. Also no order just in when I could think of them.
Similar threads
