Will Tom Brady Become The Greatest...

[ILoveTheVikings]

20 hours ago, lancerman said:

To the first point... Brady already is considered the GOAT. No GOAT is undisputed. There's a lot of people that would argue that Lebron James is better than Jordan. It's not a lot, but they exist and some of them are prominent in the media. There's a lot of people that think Orr and Howe were better than Gretzky. There's a lot of baseball historians that think Cobb was better than Ruth. Alot of boxing people put Lewis and Robinson above Ali. There are no undisputed GOAT's. There are consensus GOAT's. And Brady is the consensus GOAT of his sport. 

Also disagree. Peyton Manning's last Super Bowl where everyone thought he would retire had less viewers than the previous Super Bowl with Brady. Also Manning was not playing for significant portions of that 2015-2016 season. The season viewership started to decline actually began with Brady being suspended. But take that for what you will it's going to be impossible to argue you cause. All I'll say is that from 1981-2001 Super Bowls hovered around 80 million viewers and then the Patriots with Brady started appearing in nearly every other game and it started spiking to it's highest peaks. 

Also nobody in this thread was really arguing marketing. Jordan was one of the first athletes to make a shoe deal and because of that Air Jordan's became iconic. Every athlete does it now. It's just everyone remembers the first. He was a great marketer. That's not really what people were arguing though. 

________________________________________________________________________________________--

Just to go to your last point about the Rock: 

-Rock was never as popular as Stone Cold Steve Austin. At both their peaks when they went at it, Rock was always booed vs him. The big business boom in 1998 started with Austin's push and it ended when Austin turned heel vs the Rock. It was one of the biggest mistakes they ever made in the history of the company. 

-Rock never won a WM main event in his prime because in 1998 Austin was bigger than him, 1999 Austin was bigger than and the more popular babyface while Rock was a heel. 2000 was really the one time Rock probably should have won but they had a hot angle going and they wanted to wait a month because.... Austin could come back and get a big pop for helping the Rock at Backlash. 2001 Austin and Rock were closer than ever but Austin was more popular with the fans and the intrique in the match was Austin. 2002 was kind of a weird year. Both Austin and the Rock could have main evented. Austin vs Hogan probably would have if Austin didn't refuse to wrestle him. Regardless the company was kind of in a downturn at the time. And in 2003 they wrestled again and they just weren't as hot anymore and the company was tanking. There was really one year in that whole period where Rock was the definitive top guy and could have main evented and won at Mania and it was 2000. That's not out of the ordinary. Cena's prime was like 2005-2003 and there were 4 consecutive years in that span where he didn't main event at all despite being the clear cut top guy. That was only true of the Rock for 2000. 

-The Rock did not elevate wrestling. Again that whole boom started and ended with Austin. Hell you could really argue it started with Hogan in the nWo in WCW (which would make him responsible for two booms) and then WWF piggybacked off that with Austin. But he didn't make wrestling more popular. And when Rock started to leave to do movies the business wasn't doing well because they turned Austin heel. It's not like Rock was doing movies in 1999 and 2000. The Rock's current stature is mostly from movies. Movies made him a far bigger star than wrestling did. 

-Rock was not treated unfairly. He was the Randy Savage to Austin's Hulk Hogan. And he was treated like Randy Savage. When they were both in their primes, Austin was always bigger. 

-Rock is not the greatest wrestler of all time. He's not even the greatest of his era. Austin was MUCH better in the ring, Austin drew more money more consistently and started the boom period, Austin was as if not more charismatic of a performer, Austin was in the ballpark on the mic. The only thing Rock has over Austin is that Rock went to Hollywood and around 2012 (like 7 years after he left wrestling) he started making it big. That doesn't make him the greatest wrestler of all time anymore than if Brett Favre had a successful movie career in 3 years it would make him the greatest football player of all time. Rock didn't really transcend the business, he used it as a platform to do something more mainstream and got popular at that. When I think of someone who trancended a sport I think of Ali who in his prime was known the world over and if he said something it had a huge impact on the culture. No other athlete is like that imo.

Ya'll forgetting about Andre the Giant. The Rock, Steve Austin, et. al pale in comparison to him.

[ILoveTheVikings]

On 1/31/2018 at 12:43 PM, Oregon Ducks said:

brady is not dominant. he is consistent.

LOL. I already posted his per game stats. They are virtually identical and even better then some of the other QB's think think are better then him.

[ILoveTheVikings]

On 1/31/2018 at 6:23 PM, Runaway Jim said:

It’s Ali. 

He wasn't the most dominant boxer ever. He was maybe the biggest star, but not the greatest boxer ever. 

[ILoveTheVikings]

On 1/28/2018 at 10:47 PM, biletnikoff said:

Fact is he still didn't  win the ones that were decided by the kicker. His arm did not win the game  except for last year.

His stats  are irrelevant to my point.he is not responsible  for the majority  of wins.his *** was on the sidelines,hoping to win

This would be like saying that only game winners in basketball count as someone winning the game. 

Robert Horry might be the GOAT using the logic you just used.

[lancerman]

1 hour ago, ILoveTheVikings said:

This would be like saying that only game winners in basketball count as someone winning the game. 

Robert Horry might be the GOAT using the logic you just used.

Here's why it's stupid. 

Super Bowl 38. Brady posts a great game. Vinatieri gets the go ahead field goal after missing two kicks AFTER Brady's defense blew TWO 4th quarter leads. Somehow Vinatieri who had a bad game for a kicker gets more credit. 

Super Bowl 39. Patriots have a 10 point lead late in the game. Are very content to go into prevent against McNabb who can't play the clock and is draining time off allowing him to get a go ahead score. Because the margin ends up being 3, Vinatieri gets the credit. 

It's just lazy a lazy thought process. 

[lancerman]

2 hours ago, ILoveTheVikings said:

He wasn't the most dominant boxer ever. He was maybe the biggest star, but not the greatest boxer ever. 

This is true. I would however say that Ali lost a good chunk of his prime and had to rebuild himself into a totally different fighter for the second half of his career and that took some time. I would also argue that Ali probably fought in the most competitive era for the heavyweight division.

Ring Magazine once ranked the top 20 heavyweights of all time. Foreman/Fraizer/Liston were all in the top 10.

With that said

Ali: 56-5

Louis: 66-3 (and his last loss was because he needed to come out of retirement for money and he was fighting a pretty dominant heavyweight champion and nobody involved really wanted the fight to happen but Louis needed the money so they made it happen)

Robinson: 173-19-6 (first loss at 40-0, second loss 128-1-2)

[Wolverine_Joe]

On 2/1/2018 at 8:38 PM, diamondbull424 said:

In terms of the viewership, the ratings for the Super Bowl have largely stayed around the same viewership level. There’s simply more people watching because there are more people. That said, the Super Bowl that saw the greatest uptic was the one of Manning vs Brees. 3 point ratings boost and 4 points to the share. No other year in recent Super Bowl history saw anything greater than a 1 point ratings difference.

I made my points as to why I don’t think he will be considered the undisputed GOAT earlier so I won’t repeat them. Just refuting that the impact to viewership wasn’t so much about Brady. For the most part, that all happened back around 1999-2008. In which case it became what it has been. League attendance during that time went from around 14m to 17.5m attendees. And during that period, the greatest show on turf and then Manning were the faces of the NFL for that time period. Since then it’s simply tended to maintain. What’s more Peyton Manning retired after the 2015-2016 season. NFL viewership has declined by 17% since that season. And just had it’s worst viewership in about a decade. Correlation or anomaly?

In terms of Tiger Woods. What I was saying is that of the players of my generation who could make an argument for greatest athlete, I would put him as one that could. During his run many thought he was better than Nicklaus. However he declined after injuries. And then his scandal forever smeared his name. And golf is the kind of good boy sport that even if Woods was more talented, his claim would no longer seriously be considered because of his off the field baggage.

—————————————

What follows has nothing to do with the Tom Brady argument.

And the Rock went head to head with Stone Cold Steve Austin in popularity within the sport. He had the greatest mic skills in WWE history. The Rock is also the only black wrestler to ever have a main event match in its history. What’s more the Rock was a team player. Having been the only ever wrestler, in his prime, to never win a Wrestlemania (he won in 2012 after his prime). Allowing the writers to allow his contemporaries to win even though he in many cases had a greater draw. 

The Rock elevated the popularity of wrestling and then legitimately became a movie star, not just some guy that’s in a couple movies. Other than Hulk Hogan there is no one with a better claim to most popular wrestler of all time (which is one of the biggest factors in defining Best). The only reason that the Rock hasn’t had as much wrestling success (in terms of belts) in comparison to his contemporaries isn’t because of athleticism (he was one of the most athletically gifted wrestlers of all time, fresh off a national collegiate title for the Miami hurricanes), but because of his pedigree.

No other star wrestler has ever been treated as unfairly as has The Rock. And because of that he was smart enough to drastically elevate himself past the limitations of a sport that would see him as the first ever “face” to lose to a “heel” in wrestlemania history (going back to the Hulk Hogan days)... and then do it back to back. He left as the greatest impact wrestling had seen since Hulk Hogan... and when he left the viewership drastically declined by about 15% in the direct few years that followed this with Stone Cold and HHH still as headliners for some of them. Even during the Jon Cena era the viewership hadn't rehabilitated.

So yes from an athletic, mic ability, and popularity standpoint (which is the true measure of greatness in a sport where not everyone has equal opportunity) the Rock was the greatest wrestler of all time. He truly more than anyone transcended his sport.

 

i'm a big wrestling fan.  rock isn't considered the greatest wrestler of all time. he only wrestled like 6 years and he moved on too fast.     he might be considered most famous wrestler of all time because he is a famous movie star who used to do wrestling.  his crossover appeal was great.  but many diehards actually resent him.   

hogan, flair, andre, and austin always ranks ahead of him.  but because of his fame, charisma, and mic skills - he is probably top 5 all time.   diehards won't admit it, but he did carry WWE after austin's absence.  

 

anyway those of you who are debating if brady transcends football or not - 

IMO Brady transcends because 

1. he married a supermodel(one of the most famous one at that, richest too)

2. 'abandoning pregnant girlfriend' for a supermodel (many casual fans believe this - one of the main factor why brady is hated among many women)

2. deflategate, spygate

3. 16-0 then 18-1

4. manning vs. brady rivalry

5. being the face of the franchise (with manning in 00's, almost by himself in 10's)

6. 28-3

 

these are main factors. these made brady.  football excellence alone aren't enough. you need stories.  you need love/hate relationship. you need tabloid stories.  stories, stories, stories.  and brady has plenty of them.  

IMO, brady became more than football.  

 

interesting quote regarding brady's card - 

Quote

"Brady, in the card world, is now being mentioned in the same breath as Jordan and Mickey Mantle."

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/22299163/tom-brady-rookie-card-sells-250000-ebay

 

 

[Wolverine_Joe]

On 2/1/2018 at 9:05 PM, lancerman said:

To the first point... Brady already is considered the GOAT. No GOAT is undisputed. There's a lot of people that would argue that Lebron James is better than Jordan. It's not a lot, but they exist and some of them are prominent in the media. There's a lot of people that think Orr and Howe were better than Gretzky. There's a lot of baseball historians that think Cobb was better than Ruth. Alot of boxing people put Lewis and Robinson above Ali. There are no undisputed GOAT's. There are consensus GOAT's. And Brady is the consensus GOAT of his sport. 

Also disagree. Peyton Manning's last Super Bowl where everyone thought he would retire had less viewers than the previous Super Bowl with Brady. Also Manning was not playing for significant portions of that 2015-2016 season. The season viewership started to decline actually began with Brady being suspended. But take that for what you will it's going to be impossible to argue you cause. All I'll say is that from 1981-2001 Super Bowls hovered around 80 million viewers and then the Patriots with Brady started appearing in nearly every other game and it started spiking to it's highest peaks. 

Also nobody in this thread was really arguing marketing. Jordan was one of the first athletes to make a shoe deal and because of that Air Jordan's became iconic. Every athlete does it now. It's just everyone remembers the first. He was a great marketer. That's not really what people were arguing though. 

________________________________________________________________________________________--

Just to go to your last point about the Rock: 

-Rock was never as popular as Stone Cold Steve Austin. At both their peaks when they went at it, Rock was always booed vs him. The big business boom in 1998 started with Austin's push and it ended when Austin turned heel vs the Rock. It was one of the biggest mistakes they ever made in the history of the company. 

-Rock never won a WM main event in his prime because in 1998 Austin was bigger than him, 1999 Austin was bigger than and the more popular babyface while Rock was a heel. 2000 was really the one time Rock probably should have won but they had a hot angle going and they wanted to wait a month because.... Austin could come back and get a big pop for helping the Rock at Backlash. 2001 Austin and Rock were closer than ever but Austin was more popular with the fans and the intrique in the match was Austin. 2002 was kind of a weird year. Both Austin and the Rock could have main evented. Austin vs Hogan probably would have if Austin didn't refuse to wrestle him. Regardless the company was kind of in a downturn at the time. And in 2003 they wrestled again and they just weren't as hot anymore and the company was tanking. There was really one year in that whole period where Rock was the definitive top guy and could have main evented and won at Mania and it was 2000. That's not out of the ordinary. Cena's prime was like 2005-2003 and there were 4 consecutive years in that span where he didn't main event at all despite being the clear cut top guy. That was only true of the Rock for 2000. 

-The Rock did not elevate wrestling. Again that whole boom started and ended with Austin. Hell you could really argue it started with Hogan in the nWo in WCW (which would make him responsible for two booms) and then WWF piggybacked off that with Austin. But he didn't make wrestling more popular. And when Rock started to leave to do movies the business wasn't doing well because they turned Austin heel. It's not like Rock was doing movies in 1999 and 2000. The Rock's current stature is mostly from movies. Movies made him a far bigger star than wrestling did. 

-Rock was not treated unfairly. He was the Randy Savage to Austin's Hulk Hogan. And he was treated like Randy Savage. When they were both in their primes, Austin was always bigger. 

-Rock is not the greatest wrestler of all time. He's not even the greatest of his era. Austin was MUCH better in the ring, Austin drew more money more consistently and started the boom period, Austin was as if not more charismatic of a performer, Austin was in the ballpark on the mic. The only thing Rock has over Austin is that Rock went to Hollywood and around 2012 (like 7 years after he left wrestling) he started making it big. That doesn't make him the greatest wrestler of all time anymore than if Brett Favre had a successful movie career in 3 years it would make him the greatest football player of all time. Rock didn't really transcend the business, he used it as a platform to do something more mainstream and got popular at that. When I think of someone who trancended a sport I think of Ali who in his prime was known the world over and if he said something it had a huge impact on the culture. No other athlete is like that imo.

 

 

agreed on rock vs. austin, but i wouldn't go randy savage far.  rock did carry the franchise for few years in austin's absence.   he really was a people's champ.  rock captivated fans with his ridiculous mic skills.   and i would say he is one of the main reason why there are so many casual fans of wrestling.  

and you are right.  those who say rock is the greatest wrestler of all time probably never really watched wrestling or followed wrestling consistently.  it's a blasphemy to say such a thing. 

anyway it's hard to quantify who's bigger than who to be honest.  for ex.  warrior was a huge draw.  i mean he overtook hogan.  warriors peak was up there with anybody.    but his peak felt off  way too quick after he became the champ.   hogan had 5 years of sustained peak and is still IMO is the greatest peak of all time.    

 

 

 

 

[diamondbull424]

@Wolverine_Joe your first post on Brady I like. And I agree with your point on stories. I think most people look at GOATs only in the light of sports and dominance. But what separates a top movie from a GOAT movie is spectacle. And in sports that spectacle is the story. Because on athletic prowess and dominance most of the players being considered already have similar resumes. And in the job circle what separates the guy who gets the job vs not getting it, is the story that candidate tells over the other similarly ranked candidates.

In terms of wrestling, I later clarified in another post. I agreed that the Rock wasn’t the best wrestler. Part for opportunity and part for leaving to pursue other avenues. But I do believe he is the greatest wrestling entertainer of all time because of his ability to transcend like no other did before. I think the big part for the spike in casual viewership in the late 90s and early 00s was because of his presence. I mean, for those that underrate his popularity and impact, how many other wrestlers had a show named after their most popular catchphrase? So greatest wrestler, you guys are right. But greatest wrestling entertainer, yes. And him leaving left a hole in the sport that I don’t think they ever were able to recover from... which is why he’s so hated. Like you said.

[lod01]

Great QB yes. Greatest, no. Luckiest QB ever. Definitely. The benefactor of 3 of the dumbest coaches ever. Mike Martz,  OC Bevell and the dumbest person in NFL SB history, OC, Shanahan.

Re-watching the stupid call on 2nd & 9 from the 40 when a FG finishes off the Pats is still hard to watch.

[biletnikoff]

19 hours ago, ILoveTheVikings said:

This would be like saying that only game winners in basketball count as someone winning the game. 

Robert Horry might be the GOAT using the logic you just used.

No, it wouldn't  be like saying that at all. That's not what I said at all.doesnt even remotely come close to what I said.

 One has nothing to do with the other.

At least Horry won games by his own hands  

Brady has lots of stats but he's  no more interesting than Troy Aikman  or the like.

Favre,Montana,Marino,Elway, each has more singular moments where they won games  with their own arm in closing/near late play moments, than Brady does. 

If Belichick  is so great, how come he never blew out anyone in a SB? Huhhh???? Lol

(((((Sports debates)))))))

 

 

[lancerman]

22 minutes ago, biletnikoff said:

No, it wouldn't  be like saying that at all. That's not what I said at all.doesnt even remotely come close to what I said.

 One has nothing to do with the other.

At least Horry won games by his own hands  

Brady has lots of stats but he's  no more interesting than Troy Aikman  or the like.

Favre,Montana,Marino,Elway, each has more singular moments where they won games  with their own arm in closing/near late play moments, than Brady does. 

If Belichick  is so great, how come he never blew out anyone in a SB? Huhhh???? Lol

(((((Sports debates)))))))

 

 

That's not even remotely true. I can think of like 10 major comeback games where Brady had to play great to give his chance to win. There's like two for Montana. With Favre there's just as many if not more where he blew it at the end. Marino has some good games, the difference is they weren't really in the playoffs. Elway actually has quite a few, however he's so much lower than Marino/Brady/Favre/Montana in significant stats, he's highly overrated.

Troy Aikman would shoot himself if he was on Brady's teams and had to deal with the games Brady's dealt with in nearly all of his Super Bowls. 

Of the list of names you gave if you said "games tight at the end and you need to go out there and win it" I'm terrified of having Favre out there, I'm meh on Marino. Montana's good in that situation. Then Brady and Elway are the guys I like most in that situation to just go out and win a game they should lose. 

And my counter to your Belichick point would be, if those other coaches were so great, why didn't they win more Super Bowls than Belichick when they had the benefit of the salary cap and glorified super teams?

 

[samgurl775]

16 hours ago, Wolverine_Joe said:

2. 'abandoning pregnant girlfriend' for a supermodel (many casual fans believe this - one of the main factor why brady is hated among many women)

I'd put this really low (if at all) on a list of why Brady is hated. I've never met a casual female fan that hates him because of this lol. 

[Apparition]

5 hours ago, lod01 said:

Great QB yes. Greatest, no. Luckiest QB ever. Definitely. The benefactor of 3 of the dumbest coaches ever. Mike Martz,  OC Bevell and the dumbest person in NFL SB history, OC, Shanahan.

Re-watching the stupid call on 2nd & 9 from the 40 when a FG finishes off the Pats is still hard to watch.

Holy hell, this is some industrial-grade salt.

Also, that's not what "benefactor" means.

[Plat2]

I don't see how anyone can still refuse to give Brady any credit at all, give the man his props. You don't win 5 SB's, win 4 SB MVP's, and go to 8 Super Bowls by being "lucky".

Take it from a huge Brady hater once upon a time, him being great year after year broke the hater in me alot of people including myself, especially 28-3. 

I get the feeling this amazing dynasty with Brady/Belichick will be a lot more appreciated once they retire, when it is back to the NFL when you don't know who's going to win every year and no one team dominates...you'll be like "Damn, what the Pats did was impressive as hell".