Will Tom Brady Become The Greatest...

[ILoveTheVikings]

20 minutes ago, sportjames23 said:

Really?

http://www.nba.com/jordan/list_honors.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Michael_Jordan

You missed the point. That other guy was arguing that only stats are what makes you the GOAT. Jordan doesn't have that many stat records.

Brady, like Jordan, has both the incredible (but not GOAT) stats and the regular season and post season winning and the hardware to be GOAT

[Plat2]

11 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Which is precisely NOT what I ever said and why I've had to post multiple times. Maybe if some people actually read the posts they were responding to and the point didn't go way over their head this thread wouldn't be this long. 

Never said Jordan wasn't that good. Said he was the GOAT in virtually every post I made. From my first post on I said Brady is not the greatest sports player ever. I said that a lot of people are trying argue against Brady by bringing up critiques that you could equally apply to Jordan. I'm sorry there's a bunch of fanboys in this thread who apparently haven't left their 90's childhood who don't have the maturity to deal with any constructive criticism of Jordan because they've been indoctrinated into the Skip Bayless mentality of it being heresy to say anything that could be construed as a negative about Jordan. 

YOU'RE talking about fanboys? Umm...nevermind.

[lancerman]

5 minutes ago, Plat2 said:

YOU'RE talking about fanboys? Umm...nevermind.

Well considering I'm not arguing that Brady;s the greatest athlete in this thread and I'm not losing my mind over a player being critiqued, yeah I am.

[dtait93]

Sorry but even for as great as he is (greatest NFL player of all time imo) he doesn't even touch Jordan lol.

[VegasOdds101]

On 1/15/2018 at 11:44 AM, Iamcanadian said:

Could not disagree more, according to Jimmy Johnson, Marino was his own worse enemy. Johnson, when he became HC at Miami, tried to explain to Marino, that you win championships by running the ball the way the Cowboys did, but Marino absolutely refused to change even a small part of how he played QB. 80% of the time, when Johnson signaled in a running play, Marino would change it to a passing play, so eventually Jimmy just quite trying to get a championship out of Marino, who was strictly about stats, winning championships was not a priority for him!!!

I believe Marino would love today's game, with all its wide open passing. His receivers were very small by today's standards, small ever for his era and DB's had to play off the LOS in order to contain them!!! They were all basically scatbacks with great hands. Also, Al Davis invented the bump and run defense, where his DB's bumped and held, WR's well past five yards, in fact over the whole course of a route and made passing attacks secondary in the NFL to running the ball. That has all ended in the current era, where WR's basically are free to run their routes without interference, which is why, offenses turned almost totally to passing attacks and WR's turned from a secondary position on a football team to a primary one, basivcally replacing the RB in that regards.

The NFL did not get serious about head shots till the NFLPA sued them over concussions, much later than the 80's, after the NFL lost that suit, they got serious about calling head shots.

As for Montana, he was sensational in Bill Walsh's WCO, an attack that Walsh invented and it took a decade for the DC's to catch up with that offense, but they finally did and few teams use it today, because teams know how to defend it. Very Hard to say, how Montana would do in today's game without his reliance on the WCO against defenses that simply did not have a clue on how to defend against it.

I think he would adjust all right, but he might not have the same level of success that he enjoyed under Bill Walsh??? Very hard to say!!!

Hey lamcanadien, great post, I was expecting to get eviscerated for my post.  The only reason I think Marino may be a tad worse was because of the short passing game.  The touch passes needed to run these spread offenses I don't think Dan would have been great at.  I could be wrong.....Also I figure Montana's west coast is similar to what is run today in these spread offenses and don't see any reason why he couldn't be as great.  He wasn't a big guy though and getting hit by today's players may be even more detrimental to his health.

I'm just one who (after now going back and watching so many youtube games from the 80s) doesn't buy the "it was so much harder back in the 80s" mantra.  During watching these games the flags came out many times on cb's interfering beyond the 5 yard chuck rule.  Roughing the passer was called all the time.   All just like I remembered.....Remember the in the grasp rule?  A lot of protection for Qbs back then and yes even more now.  And yes they do call more PIs and PFs but many of those are offensive PIs.  Replay takes away a catch a game it seems.  Receivers were credited with catches if a defender forced them out before they could get their feet down. Players overall were smaller and therefore not hitting as hard as today's players hit.  Yes QBs and recievers can't be hit in the head or there is a penalty.....but they are still being hit in the head at a steady rate. That fact doesn't make it easier for a QB.

Overall is it a lot easier for a QB in todays game?  I don't see it.  Pre 1978 when DBs were allowed to bump until the ball was in the air absolutely makes it more difficult but since 1978 I don't see it.  I see QBs over time have become better.  Systems for more efficient passing has evolved where the running game has stalled.  There is a lot more on a QBs shoulders today.  This fact does make me think a guy like Marino would love today's game.

[BobbyPhil1781]

How the hell are people comparing football (ultimate team game) to basketball (where a single player can literally carry a team)??

Why the hell did I come in here? This hurts my head.......

[lancerman]

5 hours ago, JTagg7754 said:

How the hell are people comparing football (ultimate team game) to basketball (where a single player can literally carry a team)??

Why the hell did I come in here? This hurts my head.......

I know right? It’s almost like people think there is a position in football or something where if the team gets an elite player in it the team will instantly improve and become competitive the rest of that players career 

[BobbyPhil1781]

4 hours ago, lancerman said:

I know right? It’s almost like people think there is a position in football or something where if the team gets an elite player in it the team will instantly improve and become competitive the rest of that players career 

Lol Never denied it did with your awful attempt at trying to mock me. If you feel an elite player on an NFL team has the same effect as an elite player on an NBA team, you are sorely mistaken. The two are not comparable

[TecmoSuperJoe]

On 1/16/2018 at 12:44 AM, Iamcanadian said:

As for Montana, he was sensational in Bill Walsh's WCO, an attack that Walsh invented and it took a decade for the DC's to catch up with that offense, but they finally did and few teams use it today, because teams know how to defend it. Very Hard to say, how Montana would do in today's game without his reliance on the WCO against defenses that simply did not have a clue on how to defend against it.

All offenses today have staples of what Bill Walsh did with the 49ers. Just like teams have staples of what Don Coryell did in St.Louis and San Diego. There is no "this is the west coast offense" book or guide that teams figured out, and abandoned. Even during that time Walsh was using a lot of concepts that came long before his time. You see a lot of teams during that period using similar formations and approaches. Montana would be fine in today's era, just like the rest of quality quarterbacks of that time. The 49ers had great players (which took time to acquire) in addition to Walsh being a very good tactician with the wealth of knowledge he learned over years and years. That's why they were good, not because Walsh pulled a rabbit out of his hat that no one could figure out. Or else Steve Deburg would have looked good as a 49er, and the team would have never lost a game from 1979 onwards. Walsh would still be learning and evolving if he was coaching today.

[Wolverine_Joe]

these are important criteria for me

 

dominance

relevance

stats

rings

clutch factor

fame

 

IMO brady is the only player who has an argument over Jordan if he wins 6th ring.

not saying he eclipses Jordan, but has an argument over him. 

 

 

i also thought Tiger had a chance to eclipse Jordan.  too bad what happened to him. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lancerman]

10 hours ago, JTagg7754 said:

Lol Never denied it did with your awful attempt at trying to mock me. If you feel an elite player on an NFL team has the same effect as an elite player on an NBA team, you are sorely mistaken. The two are not comparable

Here's what I'll say all joking aside. 

They definitely aren't comparable across the board....  In this era you take the worst team in the NFL and give them the best WR, it probably doesn't mean much. Give them the best RB, it's not going to mean much. Give them the best offensive line, it'll help a little bit more than that. Give them the best CB, maybe the best WR on the opposing team is less productive and you look a bit better. Best defensive lineman, you might get a couple more sacks and look a bit better, but you aren't seeing dramatic improvment. 

HOWEVER, the QB position is different. An elite QB in this era of football especially will completely change a team. Even the Browns right now who couldn't win a single game would be looking at a record at around .500. Which is essentially what Michael Jordan did when he went on a Bulls team that had .329 win percentage the year before he got their and made them .463 his first year. They actually went down to .363 his second, .488 his third. Then finally got Pippen in his fourth year and were able to go above .500 the rest of his run even when he wasn't there (they had a .670 win percentage the year he took a hiatus). 

The Saints had a historically bad defense and with an elite QB the worst they were at was 7-9.  So while in a large generality you are correct, the QB position in the NFL is the equivalent to having the same effect of a super star NBA player. Especially in Jordan's era. It's very similar. The Broncos with Manning were one of the most dominant teams in the NFL, they even had a great defense when he declines, when you throw trash in their at QB even a super elite defense goes 5-11. 

In that sense it is comparable. And it's very fair to hold an elite QB up to a superstar NBA player. They have roughly the same effect.

 

[BobbyPhil1781]

9 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Here's what I'll say all joking aside. 

They definitely aren't comparable across the board....  In this era you take the worst team in the NFL and give them the best WR, it probably doesn't mean much. Give them the best RB, it's not going to mean much. Give them the best offensive line, it'll help a little bit more than that. Give them the best CB, maybe the best WR on the opposing team is less productive and you look a bit better. Best defensive lineman, you might get a couple more sacks and look a bit better, but you aren't seeing dramatic improvment. 

HOWEVER, the QB position is different. An elite QB in this era of football especially will completely change a team. Even the Browns right now who couldn't win a single game would be looking at a record at around .500. Which is essentially what Michael Jordan did when he went on a Bulls team that had .329 win percentage the year before he got their and made them .463 his first year. They actually went down to .363 his second, .488 his third. Then finally got Pippen in his fourth year and were able to go above .500 the rest of his run even when he wasn't there (they had a .670 win percentage the year he took a hiatus). 

The Saints had a historically bad defense and with an elite QB the worst they were at was 7-9.  So while in a large generality you are correct, the QB position in the NFL is the equivalent to having the same effect of a super star NBA player. Especially in Jordan's era. It's very similar. The Broncos with Manning were one of the most dominant teams in the NFL, they even had a great defense when he declines, when you throw trash in their at QB even a super elite defense goes 5-11. 

In that sense it is comparable. And it's very fair to hold an elite QB up to a superstar NBA player. They have roughly the same effect.

 

No, it's not similar. We see what happens to elite QBs when they don't have an offensive line. We see what happens to elite QBs when they have to become one-dimensional b/c a portion of their offense isn't worth a damn. ONE PLAYER In the NBA can literally carry an entire team. He is 20% of the starting lineup while the QB is under 10%.

This is not comparable. The only thing that they have in common is that they both help their teams, that is correct. When you put it into context, an elite QB doesn't help their team like an elite player in the NBA and it's not even close.

[lancerman]

Just now, JTagg7754 said:

No, it's not similar. We see what happens to elite QBs when they don't have an offensive line. We see what happens to elite QBs when they have to become one-dimensional b/c a portion of their offense isn't worth a damn. ONE PLAYER In the NBA can literally carry an entire team. He is 20% of the starting lineup while the QB is under 10%.

This is not comparable. The only thing that they have in common is that they both help their teams, that is correct. When you put it into context, an elite QB doesn't help their team like an elite player in the NBA and it's not even close.

Did you even read what I wrote? No Jordan couldn't. He never had .500 team until he had Scottie Pippen. So he quite literally couldn't carry a team himself. And his team had a .670 win percentage without him when they were properly built. So the team didn't even need to be carried when he was winning titles, that had strong pieces. 

An elite QB will keep a historically awful defense around .500 (Drew Brees as evidence), will usually get their team to win a Super Bowl (list every elite QB in history, Marino and Tarkenton are the only elite ones without a ring and that's because Marino ran into Joe Montana in the year he was poised to win it and Tarkenton ran into Griese, Staubach and Bradshaw when he was poised to win it). 

Actually statistically it's very similar comparing the impact an elite QB has and an elite NBA player has. The only evidence against it seems to just be you saying it. 

[BobbyPhil1781]

You're the type of guy who thinks Terry Bradshaw is one of the greatest QBs in the history of the NFL, aren't you?

[lancerman]

21 minutes ago, JTagg7754 said:

You're the type of guy who thinks Terry Bradshaw is one of the greatest QBs in the history of the NFL, aren't you?

No but he's underrated. Also his era was very different than today as far as the impact of a QB. But still Bradshaw was at worst the third best QB of his era. He was kind of like a rich man's Aikman. A guy that didn't have the greatest stats but came up big in the important moments and was a key feature in the Steelers success, especially later on. I'd personally only put Staubach and Tarkenton ahead of hims for the 70's (maybe Griese if you want to debate that). 

And again, you've offered nothing but platitudes to back up your points. Drew Brees had all time bad defenses and his worst record was 7-9. Jordan couldn't get a winning season without Pippen. Manning went from worst team in the league to 13-3 within two years of getting him in his tenure they had two losing seasons (one less than Jordan) his first and 4th year. Brady's team went from 5-11 to 11-5 and a Super Bowl with him and never had a losing season since. Aside from his first year as a starter, the Packers only had one losing season since they got Rodgers and it was this year with Rodgers injured. They went from being in the conference title game to their first losing season in 10 years because their elite QB was out. Joe Flacco literally led his team to championship because as a QB he got hot in the post season. Eli did the same in 2011. 

In the NFL in this era, yes an elite QB playing at a high level has the exact same impact as a single super star in the NBA. On complete trash team they will go from dirt worst to just around .500. Give them competent pieces and they will be competitive and in the hunt every year. Give them a stacked team and competent coaching they win a lot of championships (like Jordan and Brady). 

When you compare the situations using actual data it's very similar. I know it conflicts with the view you made yourself believe for whatever reason, but as of now you've brought nothing to back up your point.