Jump to content
CP3MVP

Has Tom Brady has 3 different HOF Careers?

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Brady had a better resume than a guy they just have first ballot to.

No, he didn't. He played half the time. You can't play 6 years, get 0 MVP's, 0 FT All-Pro's, and have decent stats and get into  the HoF. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly 2007–2013 is the more controversial period to get in imo. Mostly because he lacks Super Bowls. To me the answer to this question is, would a guy who....

-has 2 MVP’s (one being the first unanimous) 

-broke the all time TD record and was the first to hit 50. 

-broke the record for most consecutive passes without an INT

-led the first 16-0 regular season record

-a first team All Pro

-2 OPOY

-6 Pro Bowls

-led the league in passer rating twice

-led the league in TD’s twice

-led the league in yards ones

-was Comeback Player of the Year

-went to 2 Super Bowls and 4AFCCG’s 

...get into the HOF despite a lack of longevity. And if your answer is yes, then yeah he has 3 HOF careers. But that middle one is going to be the most scrutinized because QB’s are judged more by rings to voters. 

To me the scariest thing is that 2014 on is the biggest no brained. 5 AFCCG’s, 3 SB’s, 4 appearances, 5 straight AFCCG’s, an MVP, the record for TD-INT ratio, 2 All Pros, 5 Pro Bowls, TD and yards leader.  And he was 37+ that whole time 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Mostly because he lacks Super Bowls.

That's a team accomplishment. He was better in every conceivable way than he was during 01-06, but had 0 SB's compared to 3 during the other time period. Why? Because it's a damn team game. People seem to confuse tennis and football at an alarming rate. 

Quote

Honestly 2007–2013 is the more controversial period to get in imo.

 

There's absolutely no reason why his 01-06' run would constitute a HoF career. His 07-13' stretch is arguably when he was at his best. The only reason it is even arguable is because he was hot garbage in 09' and 13'. 

Edited by C0LTSFAN4L1F3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

No, he didn't. He played half the time. You can't play 6 years, get 0 MVP's, 0 FT All-Pro's, and have decent stats and get into  the HoF. 

Year he did..... he led the league in yards and TD’s more, he won more playoff games, he got more All Pro’s, he led a team to the most consecutive wins ever, he has more SB MVP’s than Aikman.

Your only argument for Aikman having a better resume is that Aikman stuck around being average for 6 additional years. So you think being a very average player for 6 years (with realistically less accolades on your resume) is the difference between first ballot and not getting in. Sorry that’s not how the HOF works. 

Brady was already one of the top 5 most successful QB’s in the Super Bowl era by that point and did more than most guys in the HOF. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lancerman said:

he got more All Pro’s

If we are going to be using 2nd team All-Pro's for some reason, when conventionally "All-Pro" is used in an argument to represent being the very best pro at that position, using 2nd team doesn't hold the same value so we would be better served to use Pro Bowls instead of 2nd team All-Pros. Aikman had 6 to Brady's 2. 

5 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Your only argument for Aikman having a better resume is that Aikman stuck around being average for 6 additional years.

Yes, because longevity matters. Accumulation matters. When they look at HoF's they say oh "He's X rank in this stat, Y rank in this stat, he has X total yards" etc etc. Aikman played for 6 more years, had 12,000 more yards, 24 more touchdowns, 1,000 more completions, and 24 more career wins(Not that this matters as much, it's a team game). He accumulated more than Brady did, had all the SB wins too. Brady's career 22,000 yards and 150 touchdowns would hurt him in his HoF chances had this actually been a real scenario. Obviously actual Tom Brady has 500+ touchdowns and 70,000+ yards.

9 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Brady was already one of the top 5 most successful QB’s in the Super Bowl era by that point and did more than most guys in the HOF. 

 No, he wasn't. That's insane. And "in the SB era" is a strange and convenient distinction, especially when the SB era was only 40 years old at the time. Less time to choose from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

That's a team accomplishment. He was better in every conceivable way than he was during 01-06, but had 0 SB's compared to 3 during the other time period. Why? Because it's a damn team game. People seem to confuse tennis and football at an alarming rate. 

There's absolutely no reason why his 01-06' run would constitute a HoF career. His 07-13' stretch is arguably when he was at his best. The only reason it is even arguable is because he was hot garbage in 09' and 13'. 

Super Bowls matter for QB’s to HOF voters. This is a well known fact. 1 QB in league history has 2 rings and didn’t get in. That guy had atrocious stats and hopped around the NFL during his career. One guy who had 3, did not excel in stats, had no regular season accolades, never led the league in any stats now got an MVP got in first ballot. That’s Aikman and by most standards he had a below average length career. Still, first ballot. 

The HOF would never hold back a guy who was already tied for 3rd most Super Bowls ever, had 2 SB MVP’s and top 5 in playoff wins. In addition to some regular season stuff. 

07-13 is a lot more questionable because you are removing the thing that makes guys automatic for most HOF voters. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Super Bowls matter for QB’s to HOF voters. 

Okay, but there's also never been a QB that won Super Bowl's and then bounced after a 6-year career. Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Hostetler, Flacco, Plunkett, Mark Rypien, and Doug Williams all won a Super Bowl and will never sniff the HoF. 

6 minutes ago, lancerman said:

07-13 is a lot more questionable because you are removing the thing that makes guys automatic for most HOF voters

2 MVP's, 2 First-Team All-Pro's, TD leader twice, yardage leader once, passer rating twice, and 2 Super Bowl appearances would give him a better shot than 01'-06' where he most just decent on amazing teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

If we are going to be using 2nd team All-Pro's for some reason, when conventionally "All-Pro" is used in an argument to represent being the very best pro at that position, using 2nd team doesn't hold the same value so we would be better served to use Pro Bowls instead of 2nd team All-Pros. Aikman had 6 to Brady's 2. 

Yes, because longevity matters. Accumulation matters. When they look at HoF's they say oh "He's X rank in this stat, Y rank in this stat, he has X total yards" etc etc. Aikman played for 6 more years, had 12,000 more yards, 24 more touchdowns, 1,000 more completions, and 24 more career wins(Not that this matters as much, it's a team game). He accumulated more than Brady did, had all the SB wins too. Brady's career 22,000 yards and 150 touchdowns would hurt him in his HoF chances had this actually been a real scenario. Obviously actual Tom Brady has 500+ touchdowns and 70,000+ yards.

 No, he wasn't. That's insane. And "in the SB era" is a strange and convenient distinction, especially when the SB era was only 40 years old at the time. Less time to choose from. 

1. It’s still a All Pro. Nobody discounts 2nd Team All Pros. Every analyst I’ve ever heard of just lists them as All Pros. This just seems like an arbitrary thing to make the discussion easier on you. Brady has an All Pro voted on by the AP, Aikman didn’t in twice the time. 

2. Longevity matters to a point. Accolades matter more. In the grand scheme for things Aikman didn’t have much longevity. He still went in 1st ballot, because of his accolades. Eli and Ben have longevity and they made their way up all time lists in unlike Aikman. They are getting in because of their rings. A peer in Rivers who was statistically much better most likely won’t get or at the very least will have a much harder road. 

You’re basically saying because Aikman got 12000 more yards in 6 years (which is pedestrian and averages 2k yards each additional season and 24 more TD’s (that’s kinda sad to be honest) is the difference between first ballot and not making it. That’s mind numbing. 

3. It’s insane to say a guy who was tied for 3rd in Super Bowl wins, tied for 2nd in Super Bowl MVP’s, was top 5 in playoff wins for a QB, and had the record for most consecutive wins ever was one of the most successful QB’s? No it’s insane not to, and it’s showing a tremendous bias on your part. 

And now you’re arguing about making a distinction between the Super Bowl era? Did you even watch back then? Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Okay, but there's also never been a QB that won Super Bowl's and then bounced after a 6-year career. Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Hostetler, Flacco, Plunkett, Mark Rypien, and Doug Williams all won a Super Bowl and will never sniff the HoF. 

2 MVP's, 2 First-Team All-Pro's, TD leader twice, yardage leader once, passer rating twice, and 2 Super Bowl appearances would give him a better shot than 01'-06' where he most just decent on amazing teams. 

All the guys you mentioned have one Super Bowl except Plunkett and he had atrocious stats for any era. Brady had 3. There was Montana with 4 (first ballot), Bradshaw with 4 (first ballot), Aikman with 3 (first ballot) and then Brady. Then most with two went first ballot. And in the decade and a half since, the only person who’s matched Brady... is Brady. So if hypothetically left the league back then, he still reclaims his standing all time 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

There's QB's in the HoF who only played 6 years and had 0 MVP's, 0 first team all pros, with mildly impressive numbers?

Tom Brady’s 2001-2006 period is better than Aikman moon Fouts  and Kelly’s careers who are HOFs. 

 

From 2001-2006 the only QBs who threw for more yards and touchdowns were Favre/Manning and Brady had a garbage offensive cast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m supposed to believe a 3 time super bow champion(2X mvp) Who led the league in passing yardage/touchdowns and finished top 5 in mvp voting multiple times is not getting into the hall 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Okay, but there's also never been a QB that won Super Bowl's and then bounced after a 6-year career. Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Hostetler, Flacco, Plunkett, Mark Rypien, and Doug Williams all won a Super Bowl and will never sniff the HoF. 

2 MVP's, 2 First-Team All-Pro's, TD leader twice, yardage leader once, passer rating twice, and 2 Super Bowl appearances would give him a better shot than 01'-06' where he most just decent on amazing teams. 

Did you just compare those journeyman bums to Tom Brady lol? 

”Decent QBs” don’t finish top 5 in mvp voting and lead the league in different categories 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CP3MVP said:

Did you just compare those journeyman bums to Tom Brady lol? 

”Decent QBs” don’t finish top 5 in mvp voting and lead the league in different categories 

It’s not even that. He said “there’s never been a QB that won Super Bowl’s and bounced”. 

There’s literally 3 QB’s in history besides Brady that won as many Super Bowls aa he did over those 6 years 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

2 MVP's, 2 First-Team All-Pro's, TD leader twice, yardage leader once, passer rating twice, and 2 Super Bowl appearances would give him a better shot than 01'-06' where he most just decent on amazing teams. 

Elaborate what amazing teams he had between 2001 and 2006. 

If you mean shutting down Peyton, don't bother, every good defense shut down Peyton in playoff during that period.

If you mean his offense could score 380 pts because of his defense, don't bother, because Brady's offense scored 380 pts in 2002 and 2005 with bad defense.

In 2002 season, Pats missed playoff because Troy Brown, the only reliable WR Brady had, was injured and out for 2.5 games, and Pats lost all 3 games.

Actually, if you had watched football since 2001, you would have known that Brady didn't earn much respect until 2005 and 2006, when people finally realized that there was something special about him. It is amazing that 2005 and 2006 Pats could even make playoff. With Peyton or Rodgers, that team would have been a 6-10 team at best.

Edited by William Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, William Lee said:

It is amazing that 2005 and 2006 Pats could even make playoff. With Peyton or Rodgers, that team would have been a 6-10 team at best.

This is definitely the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on a football forum, and at this point I dont see a reason to bother responding to your trash anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×