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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
