Will Tom Brady Become The Greatest...

[Oregon Ducks]

Bro, how these people trying to compare brady to Gretsky, Ali, Ronaldo, Bonds and LeBron?

[DontTazeMeBro]

If he wins a 5th Super Bowl is he the greatest QB of all time? If he wins a 6th is he the greatest athlete of all time? Can’t wait for, “If Tom Brady wins the Walter Payton Man of the Year is he the greatest person of all time?”

If there is any good that can come out of this is that they’ll probably be out of ways to elevate him 

[DirtyDez]

We've never seen longevity like this from an individual player in a team sport.  Maybe Kareem but he was just "hanging on" near the end and riding Magic's coattails.  Brady could win a SB 16 years apart. 

[Malik]

5 minutes ago, DirtyDez said:

We've never seen longevity like this from an individual player in a team sport.  Maybe Kareem but he was just "hanging on" near the end and riding Magic's coattails.  Brady could win a SB 16 years apart. 

Willie Mays? Hank Aaron? Barry Bonds? Not to mention all 3 had higher and longer peaks.

[DirtyDez]

5 minutes ago, Malik said:

Willie Mays? Hank Aaron? Barry Bonds? Not to mention all 3 had higher and longer peaks.

All admitted PED users.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/8769398/a-writer-gives-hall-fame-vote

[Malik]

3 minutes ago, DirtyDez said:

All admitted PED users.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/8769398/a-writer-gives-hall-fame-vote

All significantly greater players than Brady could ever hope to be.

[43M]

6 minutes ago, Malik said:

Willie Mays? Hank Aaron? Barry Bonds? Not to mention all 3 had higher and longer peaks.

Well, the "any sport" comment probably wasnt accurate, but Brady played a much rougher sport and a much tougher position to be individually dominant at than any of those guys.

And lets not get into why Bonds had "higher and longer peaks"     

[43M]

2 minutes ago, Malik said:

All significantly greater players than Brady could ever hope to be.

Its hard to compare across different sports, but this is clearly just blind hate.

[Malik]

3 minutes ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Its hard to compare across different sports, but this is clearly just blind hate.

Bonds was clearly and easily the far away best player during his prime. At no point in Brady's career was the gulf between him an the next best guy anywhere near that between Bonds and whoever you want put against him. It's not like he was playing in an era of scrubs either. Even when Griffey Jr was healthy, Bonds was still superior.

[Avin1973]

Pelé was the best.

[lancerman]

 

21 minutes ago, Malik said:

Bonds was clearly and easily the far away best player during his prime. At no point in Brady's career was the gulf between him an the next best guy anywhere near that between Bonds and whoever you want put against him. It's not like he was playing in an era of scrubs either. Even when Griffey Jr was healthy, Bonds was still superior.

2007. Brady that year put up far and away the best QB season. 

Also it's a misleading argument on your part. Brady's early prime years he had Peyton Manning who was a top 3 QB of all time. In his later prime years he had Rodgers who most likely will end up in the top 5 of all time. Also you have Drew Brees whose probably going to to wind up in the top 10 as well. Brady played in easily the most competitive era as far as WB play. 

By comparison if you ranked the top 10 MLB players of all time, most historians wouldn't have a single one besides Bonds in his era or even really close to it. It would be like if Bond's played in the same era as Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth. Yeah he wouldn't pull that far away. Ken Griffey Jr is one of the greatest players of all time, but he probably would struggle to get in most historians top 10's. That would be like if the best QB in the NFL during Brady's tenure was Dan Fouts or Jim Kelly. So it's a terrible metric because of era. Not that there were scrubs in his era, but it clearly wasn't the most competitive era of baseball. 

You're argument would be the equivalent of me saying Muhammad Ali can't be the greatest boxer of all time because the gap between him Joe Fraizer, George Foreman, and Ken Norton (who should have two wins over him) wasn't that massive while Rocky Marciano was far and away better than the next guy. It's just a bad argument. 

Like if anything Brady should get massive bonus points for being the consensus greatest QB coming out of an era that at one point or another Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Brett Favre, Ben Roethlisberger, and Aaron Rodgers.

This is why I hate this thread. Not because anyone is disagreeing with the premise. Hell I disagree with the premise. It's Ali or some other single sport athlete. But it's just the arguments people use against Brady are just so poorly thought out and apply to other people who they are comparing Brady to. 

[DirtyDez]

19 minutes ago, Malik said:

Bonds was clearly and easily the far away best player during his prime. At no point in Brady's career was the gulf between him an the next best guy anywhere near that between Bonds and whoever you want put against him. It's not like he was playing in an era of scrubs either. Even when Griffey Jr was healthy, Bonds was still superior.

My original statement was regarding longevity.  With Bonds there's no way to know how his career would've played out if he didn't unnaturally transform his body late in his career.  And for the record I'm not a Bonds hater and think he should've been a first ballot HOF regardless of PED's.

[Malik]

3 minutes ago, lancerman said:

 

2007. Brady that year put up far and away the best QB season. 

Also it's a misleading argument on your part. Brady's early prime years he had Peyton Manning who was a top 3 QB of all time. In his later prime years he had Rodgers who most likely will end up in the top 10 of all time. Also you have Drew Brees whose probably going to to wind up in the top 10 as well. Brady played in easily the most competitive era as far as WB play. 

By comparison if you ranked the top 10 MLB players of all time, most historians wouldn't have a single one besides Bonds in his era or even really close to it. It would be like if Bond's played in the same era as Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth. Yeah he wouldn't pull that far away. Ken Griffey Jr is one of the greatest players of all time, but he probably would struggle to get in most historians top 10's. That would be like if the best QB in the NFL during Brady's tenure was Dan Fouts or Jim Kelly. So it's a terrible metric because of era. Not that there were scrubs in his era, but it clearly wasn't the most competitive era of baseball. 

You're argument would be the equivalent of me saying Muhammad Ali can't be the greatest boxer of all time because the gap between him Joe Fraizer, George Foreman, and Ken Norton (who should have two wins over him) wasn't that massive while Rocky Marciano was far and away better than the next guy. It's just a bad argument. 

Like if anything Brady should get massive bonus points for being the consensus greatest QB coming out of an era that at one point or another Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Brett Favre, Ben Roethlisberger, and Aaron Rodgers.

This is why I hate this thread. Not because anyone is disagreeing with the premise. Hell I disagree with the premise. It's Ali or some other single sport athlete. But it's just the arguments people use against Brady are just so poorly thought out and apply to other people who they are comparing Brady to. 

Except there isn't a comparable season to Bonds unless you go back to literally the 1920s before there was even integration. Bonds' WAR is the greatest while Brady's singular season in 2007 is marginally better than Peyton's 2004 and it's debatable even there. Bonds is literally a god level player in comparison to literally everyone and that's both offensively and defensively. The idea that Brady is comparable to Bonds greatness just highlights ignorance of baseball. Brady is the overall career consensus greatest player. There were brief times in his career where he was the best player. Bonds was the greatest versus the entire history of his sport for large portions of his career. That's the difference you do not get.

[Asciimo]

22 minutes ago, Malik said:

Except there isn't a comparable season to Bonds unless you go back to literally the 1920s before there was even integration. Bonds' WAR is the greatest while Brady's singular season in 2007 is marginally better than Peyton's 2004 and it's debatable even there. Bonds is literally a god level player in comparison to literally everyone and that's both offensively and defensively. The idea that Brady is comparable to Bonds greatness just highlights ignorance of baseball. Brady is the overall career consensus greatest player. There were brief times in his career where he was the best player. Bonds was the greatest versus the entire history of his sport for large portions of his career. That's the difference you do not get.

steroids

[lancerman]

Just now, Malik said:

Except there isn't a comparable season to Bonds unless you go back to literally the 1920s before there was even integration. Bonds' WAR is the greatest while Brady's singular season in 2007 is marginally better than Peyton's 2004 and it's debatable even there. Bonds is literally a god level player in comparison to literally everyone and that's both offensively and defensively. The idea that Brady is comparable to Bonds greatness just highlights ignorance of baseball. Brady is the overall career consensus greatest player. There were brief times in his career where he was the best player. Bonds was the greatest versus the entire history of his sport for large portions of his career. That's the difference you do not get.

I didn't really want to get into this, but there's a reason why Bonds has some of those numbers. Bond's 3 best WAR years came in his last 7 years. His  3 best batting averages came in his last 5 years. His best stretch of home run seasons came in his last 8 years. 

Bond's was a great player and a HOF talent before he ever did steroids. But there's no doubt he did steroids and there's no doubt that his best numbers that significantly enhanced his career averages came with the aid of steroid use. So when you look at Bond's stats and compare him to other people's numbers in the past you have to do it with massive grain of salt. He most likely does not hold the home run record without steroids. 

Bonds average 31.7 hr's a year before 2000. From 2000-2004 before he missed a year and really stopped playing full seasons he averaged 51.6 hr's over a 5 year stretch. He probably honestly doesn't even break Hank Aaron's records without steroids. So your using a weird argument because Bond's didn't have any top 10 peers in his era in the first place, then your clearly comparing a career of numbers enhanced by steroid use to people in the past to say he was better than them. Bond's realistically wasn't even better than Hank Aaron and he was a lot closer to several other greats without the roids. He still would have been one of the best baseball players ever, but his numbers are so clearly distorted that you can't count them. 

Me personally I know for a fact he's the greatest player of my lifetime. Also I think he should be in the HOF. But his stats really shouldn't be. His HR record shouldn't be. And to be honest, we can complain all we want, a lot of HOF writers don't think he belongs in the HOF because of how much of an impact steroids had on his career. 

Brady's going to go down certainly as the best of his position and probably NFL by most historians and experts. Bond's will never be considered the greatest baseball player of all time and there's too many question marks about how far was he really away from his peers without roids and where he ranks compared to everybody else.