U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-16-2015, 10:57 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
4,847 posts, read 6,356,456 times
Reputation: 5792

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoGuy View Post

4) Record against other Hall of Famers. Don't know about many but he has pretty well owned Peyton Manning.
This line of discussion always irks me. Quarterbacks to not face each other. They face a defense. Brady never "owned" Manning or any other defense. He "owned" the Colts D and that of other teams.

 
Old 08-17-2015, 06:16 AM
 
Location: Two Rivers, Wisconsin
11,722 posts, read 11,541,988 times
Reputation: 12484
I'm with you there, just like winning SBs is a QB stat! Winning SBs does not make one QB more justifiable than another! It is a team sport and team stat.
 
Old 08-17-2015, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
5,628 posts, read 4,220,455 times
Reputation: 4582
I think its fair to use SB rings as a tie breaker. IMO, there is not much difference between Brady/Manning/Rodgers so in order to break the tie, i would use Brady's 4 rings to put him on top.. but that's just me. I would much rather use that method vs head to head which is silly.
 
Old 08-17-2015, 07:48 AM
 
5,221 posts, read 5,086,926 times
Reputation: 9729
Couldn't carry Unitas' jock strap.
 
Old 08-17-2015, 07:59 AM
 
Location: Two Rivers, Wisconsin
11,722 posts, read 11,541,988 times
Reputation: 12484
I think its fair to use SB rings as a tie breaker. IMO, there is not much difference between Brady/Manning/Rodgers so in order to break the tie, i would use Brady's 4 rings to put him on top.. but that's just me. I would much rather use that method vs head to head which is silly.

Everyone has a different view on this, and I agree to disagree. Stats make more sense to me as they are individual, many factors go into a SB win, other than the QB play. You have great QBs who don't have a ring, or one or two and they may be better than Brady, Manning or Rodgers, no doubt.

Rodgers is more mobile, over 100% rating every year he's been in the league, fewer INTs than any QB and he is not the greatest ever, may not be at the end of his career. Super bowls have very little to do with it, and as you said that's just me!
 
Old 08-17-2015, 09:25 AM
 
2,286 posts, read 1,509,695 times
Reputation: 1143
Don't compare to Rodgers by using SB rings. Rodgers is way younger.
 
Old 08-17-2015, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Southern Colorado
3,575 posts, read 1,772,860 times
Reputation: 4582
We can never fairly compare todays athletes to yesterdays athletes since things change so much. My own vote is to start the clock over with every generation. The purpose of sports is to enjoy them. What is the purpose of getting super analytical about sports talk?

I had a client who was an NBA team captain. The athletes are, sometimes, not 100% fond of the fanatics who think games and sports are life and death events. That everything related is the most important thing in the world. Yes...I am putting my own words in his mouth since I forgot the exact words.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TAM88 View Post
It's tough to crown a player the greatest ever when there have been several great players to come before him. In this era, I think he's the greatest QB.

He's lead the Patriots during the greatest run by any team in NFL history. He has more Super Bowl titles in the last 13 years than some NFL teams have playoff wins.

Brady is 6-3 in the AFC title games. Bitter fans using injuries as a crutch aside(every NFL team has to deal with them), he has a pretty stellar record in the AFCCG.
 
Old 08-17-2015, 11:48 AM
 
Location: AriZona
5,230 posts, read 3,120,546 times
Reputation: 5395
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoGuy View Post
We can never fairly compare today's athletes to yesterday's athletes since things change so much. My own vote is to start the clock over with every generation. The purpose of sports is to enjoy them. What is the purpose of getting super analytical about sports talk?
Understand a certain need to restart the clock, but people could only agree with that to a certain point. The problem with not comparing today's with yesterday's athletes is that yesterday's athletes may actually have been better in many respects, whether today's generation will admit that or not. Statistics never lie.

Today's athletes have different rules and regulations, and different uniforms and helmets, and definitely different circumstances from the athletes of yesteryear. Super analytical? Maybe, but it's just people being honest.
 
Old 08-17-2015, 04:31 PM
 
513 posts, read 573,829 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by susancruzs View Post
I think its fair to use SB rings as a tie breaker. IMO, there is not much difference between Brady/Manning/Rodgers so in order to break the tie, i would use Brady's 4 rings to put him on top.. but that's just me. I would much rather use that method vs head to head which is silly.

Everyone has a different view on this, and I agree to disagree. Stats make more sense to me as they are individual, many factors go into a SB win, other than the QB play. You have great QBs who don't have a ring, or one or two and they may be better than Brady, Manning or Rodgers, no doubt.

Rodgers is more mobile, over 100% rating every year he's been in the league, fewer INTs than any QB and he is not the greatest ever, may not be at the end of his career. Super bowls have very little to do with it, and as you said that's just me!
The "stats are individual" for qbs is also flat wrong though. They need protection to have time to pass and they need receivers to make a play. A good qb with great skill players and o line will probably put up better numbers than a great qb with an average o line and group of skill players. The whole argument is too subjective to ever reach a conclusive opinion.
With that said, I got Brady as #1 or 2. Only possibly behind Montana
 
Old 08-17-2015, 05:41 PM
 
2,286 posts, read 1,509,695 times
Reputation: 1143
Exactly. Look at Manning vs. the Patriots in the AFCCG, then look at him 2 weeks later in the Super Bowl. Huge difference in how well his o-line and receivers played.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top