Will Tom Brady Become The Greatest...

[iothar]

Just now, biletnikoff said:

Like the rest of my posts? I'll say it again..I am, in fact, the most intelligent  sports fan on this forum till you also realize you are watching entertainment and not competition. That's  just the way it is.Thats just how it goes.Thats just what real life is. 

You just put an extra space (twice) in your sentence and failed to put a space before your last sentence. I feel like I would find you on the facebook PEMDAS problems coming up with wrong answers and talking about how you have a 148 IQ.

[Wolverine_Joe]

1 hour ago, mission27 said:

I'm not comparing guys across sports just within the sport. 

Brady to me is the undisputed GOAT in the NFL.  No argument for anyone else.  Gretzky is the same in the NHL.

In the NBA, I would say Jordan is the GOAT, but you can make a really good argument for Lebron.  Or probably Wilt or Bill Russell.  And I think that argument will hinge on what matters most to you (statistical achievement, winning, etc.) and how you compare players across eras. 

 

 jordan is a consensus GOAT in the nba - by nba fans.   if there's a GOAT poll for NBA, jordan probably gets 90% of the votes. that's pretty much consensus IMO.  Kareem would get some votes.  kareem is the only player in the nba who is considered the GOAT by some. 

 

Bron has a zero argument over jordan - lost too many titles - not fair, but that's just how it is.

wilt has zero argument over jordan - bill russell and celtics happened.

russell has an argument over jordan  - but it's like saying otto graham is better than brady. honestly there's no argument.  most russell supporters are from boston and they are like very very old.  

 

 

yes, you can make an argument. you can argue rocky marciano was better than ali.  or joe lewis.  you can argue sampras over federer. bobby orr over gretzky.   jerry rice over brady.   no such thing as consensus consensus. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wolverine_Joe]

1 hour ago, Plat2 said:

Why not include Gretzky still, even though hockey isn't as big anymore it doesn't make what he did less impressive. I would argue that he was the most DOMINANT team sports player ever.

 

 

it's probably the same reason as the greatest bobsledder or x-games player or UFC fighter don't make a list. 

turn on any sports channels or radio shows and see if they talk about hockey.  none.   if sidney crosby somehow eclipses everything gretzky has accomplished, would he ever be in that mt rushmore?  i doubt it.

 

 

 

[Wolverine_Joe]

1 hour ago, mission27 said:

Tbh there is a very strong argument for Lebron.  He is the more complete player, will end his career with more statistical accomplishments, and has taken his team to the finals seven straight years with three completely different teams, none of which have been nearly as strong as MJs Bulls teams.  Again I'd still say MJ but expect Lebron will be viewed as the GOAT within the next 5 years. 

I'm not sure what the argument is for Rice over Brady .  Brady will end his career as statistically accomplished as Rice, has won much more than Rice did, and also plays a much more important position and has a bigger impact on his team than Rice did.  Rice would touch the ball 5-10 times a game.  Brady touches the ball on every play.  He's thrown the ball 48, 50, and 62 (!!) times in winning Super Bowl efforts.  Rice was a great player but idk how you can compare his impact to Tom Brady.

 

unless bron somehow decides to join the Warriors, i doubt he will ever become the GOAT in the NBA.  that ship has sailed IMO.  but Bron has a great chance to be #2 all time in the nba. 

 

 

[Plat2]

5 minutes ago, Wolverine_Joe said:

 

it's probably the same reason as the greatest bobsledder or x-games player or UFC fighter don't make a list. 

turn on any sports channels or radio shows and see if they talk about hockey.  none.   if sidney crosby somehow eclipses everything gretzky has accomplished, would he ever be in that mt rushmore?  i doubt it.

 

 

 

I know Hockey has fallen off ALOT but to compare it to bobsledding and the X-Games? lol that is going a little too far.

[Wolverine_Joe]

5 minutes ago, Plat2 said:

I know Hockey has fallen off ALOT but to compare it to bobsledding and the X-Games? lol that is going a little too far.

 

point still stands.     i just think hockey is irrelevant.  

 

[lancerman]

3 minutes ago, Plat2 said:

I know Hockey has fallen off ALOT but to compare it to bobsledding and the X-Games? lol that is going a little too far.

Tbf in the 70's and 80's which wasn't that long ago the Mt Rushmore would be whoever people thought was the greatest boxer, whoever was considered the fastest man on the planet, whoever was the best baseball player and then whoever was more prominent between the best soccer/hockey/basketball player and only in the mid 80's would the best basketball player have a chance. 

Hockey has fallen off alot. Like the person you quoted said, if tomorrow some guy came along and eclipsed everything Gretzky ever did, we wouldn't be talking about him the way we talked about Gretzky. Same with baseball. Bond's was easily the best baseball player of his generation. Nobody ever talked about him the way people talk about Brady right now even if in hindsight he was a top 5 and probably the best going back atleast to the mid 70's. 

Point is it's very contextual. When Jordan played Bird/Magic raised the profile of basketball to such a point that when Jordan became the biggest thing he had a massive platform to spring off of and he was the next phase of a big wave they created. Then not long after he retired their was a bit of lull and the greatest player on the planet was Kobe who was basically a poor man's Jordan. Add in all the marketing and it's easy to see where a lot of his stature is contextual. 

I think I've probably championed Ali more than anyone in this thread and he was a guy who during his prime was the most famous man on the planet and entire countries were stopping if he wanted to fight there. Jordan was big, but the world didn't stop to watch his Final's appearances the way the way Ali's fight with Foreman and Fraizer captivated the world. 

Gretzky was never that even at his peak and nowadays his sport really is a distant fourth among American team sports. And as far as baseball if the best baseball player walked down the street in any major American City it wouldn't cause any commotion. 

As far as Brady, I just got back from a Nuggets vs Celtics game IN Denver. Leaving the Pepsi Center, all you heard was Nuggets and Celtics fans yelling about Brady.

[lancerman]

20 minutes ago, Wolverine_Joe said:

 

unless bron somehow decides to join the Warriors, i doubt he will ever become the GOAT in the NBA.  that ship has sailed IMO.  but Bron has a great chance to be #2 all time in the nba. 

 

 

See and that's why I think it's kind of bs when people say "well Brady's more at the whim of his team and Jordan had more control of his team's success". The ONLY reason Lebron doesn't have more championships is strictly because of his team and coaches and the way the league is set up. If you have Jordan the exact same team and the exact same coaches every year that Lebron had, the only difference is that Jordan probably wins the Mav's series. And even then, I'd say it's a toss up that Jordan wins that one series vs the Warriors because that was a flatout miracle. So Jordan would either realistically do the exact same as Lebron 3- 5 or slightly better at 4-4. A single basketball player is just as much at the mercy of the coach and team as a QB is.

[Plat2]

6 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Tbf in the 70's and 80's which wasn't that long ago the Mt Rushmore would be whoever people thought was the greatest boxer, whoever was considered the fastest man on the planet, whoever was the best baseball player and then whoever was more prominent between the best soccer/hockey/basketball player and only in the mid 80's would the best basketball player have a chance. 

Hockey has fallen off alot. Like the person you quoted said, if tomorrow some guy came along and eclipsed everything Gretzky ever did, we wouldn't be talking about him the way we talked about Gretzky. Same with baseball. Bond's was easily the best baseball player of his generation. Nobody ever talked about him the way people talk about Brady right now even if in hindsight he was a top 5 and probably the best going back atleast to the mid 70's. 

Point is it's very contextual. When Jordan played Bird/Magic raised the profile of basketball to such a point that when Jordan became the biggest thing he had a massive platform to spring off of and he was the next phase of a big wave they created. Then not long after he retired their was a bit of lull and the greatest player on the planet was Kobe who was basically a poor man's Jordan. Add in all the marketing and it's easy to see where a lot of his stature is contextual. 

I think I've probably championed Ali more than anyone in this thread and he was a guy who during his prime was the most famous man on the planet and entire countries were stopping if he wanted to fight there. Jordan was big, but the world didn't stop to watch his Final's appearances the way the way Ali's fight with Foreman and Fraizer captivated the world. 

Gretzky was never that even at his peak and nowadays his sport really is a distant fourth among American team sports. And as far as baseball if the best baseball player walked down the street in any major American City it wouldn't cause any commotion. 

As far as Brady, I just got back from a Nuggets vs Celtics game IN Denver. Leaving the Pepsi Center, all you heard was Nuggets and Celtics fans yelling about Brady.

I agree with the majority of your points that Gretzky's legacy isn't as influential as some of the other legends you mentioned because of how the sport is fading but like I said it shouldn't take away from what he did and again comparing hockey to bobsledding is just a little too much. I wasn't around in the 80's so I dont know how they looked at Gretzky, but if some kid (like McDavid) eclipses everything that Gretzky did there still would be a ton of buzz around him, more than the best X-Games player or bobsledder would ever have.

Yes of course, Jordan did not have the same popularity as Ali had globally, well because Ali was Ali and he was also a political activist at the same time and was a symbol of the civil rights movement...he represented more than just boxing, more than just sports. There are levels to this popularity stuff just like the Super Bowl will never ever top the World Cup Final in terms of ratings.

As with the last part of your post, the Super Bowl is just right around the corner and the Patriots are in it so you know the football frenzy is going to be at an all time high that's why they were probably yelling about Brady, that was a good game by the way.

[Plat2]

25 minutes ago, lancerman said:

See and that's why I think it's kind of bs when people say "well Brady's more at the whim of his team and Jordan had more control of his team's success". The ONLY reason Lebron doesn't have more championships is strictly because of his team and coaches and the way the league is set up. If you have Jordan the exact same team and the exact same coaches every year that Lebron had, the only difference is that Jordan probably wins the Mav's series. And even then, I'd say it's a toss up that Jordan wins that one series vs the Warriors because that was a flatout miracle. So Jordan would either realistically do the exact same as Lebron 3- 5 or slightly better at 4-4. A single basketball player is just as much at the mercy of the coach and team as a QB is.

This is all just theoretical though, a whole lotta coulda woulda shoulda...Jordan could have gone 0-8 or 8-0 taking Lebrons place, we'll never know, what we do know is that he went 6 for 6 with the Bulls. And a basketball player does have more control of his teams success just because of the plain fact that there are only 5 players on the court compared to 11 on the field and they play both sides of the ball.

[lancerman]

8 hours ago, Plat2 said:

This is all just theoretical though, a whole lotta coulda woulda shoulda...Jordan could have gone 0-8 or 8-0 taking Lebrons place, we'll never know, what we do know is that he went 6 for 6 with the Bulls. And a basketball player does have more control of his teams success just because of the plain fact that there are only 5 players on the court compared to 11 on the field and they play both sides of the ball.

But that's precisely my point though. When it's Jordan people go "oh well that's could of would of should of". When it's Brady people want to qualify his situation. How many people in this thread said without the coach and team he wouldn't have as much success or someone else would have had more success (Manning or Rodgers) with Brady's circumstances. So I think it's a valid point. Both players were very fortunate to have played on the teams that they did with the coaches that they did. But one of them gets the benefit of the doubt. Well never know what Brady or Jordan would have done on another team. 

The the second point that's just using numbers and dividing to assign value. Are you going to really say the 10 other players on offense equal the QB? In football the QB touches the ball every single offensive play, the QB is reading the defense and moving players around every offensive play, the QB has the option to call audibles every offensive play (well someone like Brady or Brees or Rodgers can), the QB is throwing the ball on every pass play. The QB has more control and impact of what happens on every offensive play compared to any other player there. It's not as simple as saying well he's one out of eleven and a basketball player is one out of five. Likewise it's not as those Jordan is on the court every minute of every quarter of every game. There are offensive series where he never touches the ball. Etc. It's not as simple as 1 in 5 and 1 in 11. 

And to go a step further, we know what happens when you take an elite QB and  take them off the team. Brady was on what is considered one of the greatest teams ever in 2007. Injured in 2008. The Patriots were fortunate that they had a very competent back up QB who knew the system. They still went from 16-0 and in the Super Bowl to a very average 11-5 and lost a tiebreaker and couldn't get in the playoffs. And that's with a competent back up (Jordan's team made the playoffs without him). Do that with a much lesser back up like the Colts had with Painter or the Packers this year had with Hundley...  and it's a complete trainwreck. That doesn't happen with any other position. The Patriots spent pretty much the whole year without their best WR in Edelman and their best defensive player in Hightower, they are in the Super Bowl. Last year they lost their TE who is one of the greatest ever at his position, they still won the SB. They had what was considered one of the greatest teams of all time and only lost the QB and they didn't make the playoffs and had no chance of winning the Super Bowl. So yeah I very much dispute the claim that a QB doesn't have the same amount of impact as a single basketball player. 

[Wolverine_Joe]

14 hours ago, lancerman said:

See and that's why I think it's kind of bs when people say "well Brady's more at the whim of his team and Jordan had more control of his team's success". The ONLY reason Lebron doesn't have more championships is strictly because of his team and coaches and the way the league is set up. If you have Jordan the exact same team and the exact same coaches every year that Lebron had, the only difference is that Jordan probably wins the Mav's series. And even then, I'd say it's a toss up that Jordan wins that one series vs the Warriors because that was a flatout miracle. So Jordan would either realistically do the exact same as Lebron 3- 5 or slightly better at 4-4. A single basketball player is just as much at the mercy of the coach and team as a QB is.

 

we will never know how MJ would perform in today's NBA.  many say he will avg 40+ pts because no one would be able to stay with him and he will just live in the FT line.  but some say there are too many long and athletic defenders to bother him.   answer is - i don't know.  my educated guess tells me 90's bulls destroys warriors in 90's rules.  bulls were tough, physical and scottie and jordan locks to splash brothers.  KD will get his points, but rodman bothers da hell out of him.  but in today's rule, both teams will go through 7 game series hell - and i would bet money on whoever has the home court.  warriors are that deep and good. 

but again, i'm not into hypotheticals.

fair or not fair, bron lost too many titles. and looks like he will lose more.    that's a fact you can't ignore in the GOAT debate.     if jordan won 6 titles, but lost 5 we won't view him as the basketball god especially in basketball.   yes, it's foolish, but jordan is jordan because he went 6 for 6 and did it in style.  

 

[lancerman]

52 minutes ago, Wolverine_Joe said:

 

we will never know how MJ would perform in today's NBA.  many say he will avg 40+ pts because no one would be able to stay with him and he will just live in the FT line.  but some say there are too many long and athletic defenders to bother him.   answer is - i don't know.  my educated guess tells me 90's bulls destroys warriors in 90's rules.  bulls were tough, physical and scottie and jordan locks to splash brothers.  KD will get his points, but rodman bothers da hell out of him.  but in today's rule, both teams will go through 7 game series hell - and i would bet money on whoever has the home court.  warriors are that deep and good. 

but again, i'm not into hypotheticals.

fair or not fair, bron lost too many titles. and looks like he will lose more.    that's a fact you can't ignore in the GOAT debate.     if jordan won 6 titles, but lost 5 we won't view him as the basketball god especially in basketball.   yes, it's foolish, but jordan is jordan because he went 6 for 6 and did it in style.  

 

Russell won 11

[Plat2]

9 hours ago, lancerman said:

But that's precisely my point though. When it's Jordan people go "oh well that's could of would of should of". When it's Brady people want to qualify his situation. How many people in this thread said without the coach and team he wouldn't have as much success or someone else would have had more success (Manning or Rodgers) with Brady's circumstances. So I think it's a valid point. Both players were very fortunate to have played on the teams that they did with the coaches that they did. But one of them gets the benefit of the doubt. Well never know what Brady or Jordan would have done on another team. 

The the second point that's just using numbers and dividing to assign value. Are you going to really say the 10 other players on offense equal the QB? In football the QB touches the ball every single offensive play, the QB is reading the defense and moving players around every offensive play, the QB has the option to call audibles every offensive play (well someone like Brady or Brees or Rodgers can), the QB is throwing the ball on every pass play. The QB has more control and impact of what happens on every offensive play compared to any other player there. It's not as simple as saying well he's one out of eleven and a basketball player is one out of five. Likewise it's not as those Jordan is on the court every minute of every quarter of every game. There are offensive series where he never touches the ball. Etc. It's not as simple as 1 in 5 and 1 in 11. 

And to go a step further, we know what happens when you take an elite QB and  take them off the team. Brady was on what is considered one of the greatest teams ever in 2007. Injured in 2008. The Patriots were fortunate that they had a very competent back up QB who knew the system. They still went from 16-0 and in the Super Bowl to a very average 11-5 and lost a tiebreaker and couldn't get in the playoffs. And that's with a competent back up (Jordan's team made the playoffs without him). Do that with a much lesser back up like the Colts had with Painter or the Packers this year had with Hundley...  and it's a complete trainwreck. That doesn't happen with any other position. The Patriots spent pretty much the whole year without their best WR in Edelman and their best defensive player in Hightower, they are in the Super Bowl. Last year they lost their TE who is one of the greatest ever at his position, they still won the SB. They had what was considered one of the greatest teams of all time and only lost the QB and they didn't make the playoffs and had no chance of winning the Super Bowl. So yeah I very much dispute the claim that a QB doesn't have the same amount of impact as a single basketball player. 

A QB doesn't play on defense though, offensively yes I agree he can have as much impact as an NBA basketball player, but the QB still only plays on one side of the ball...so its actually 5 players vs 22 players if we are talking about both sides of the ball. MJ also made all defensive first team 9 times and was regarded as top 5 greatest perimeter defensive players of all time as well as top 5 offensive players of all time.

I have no problem with people thinking Brady is equal or greater than Jordan (although I would disagree with that) but to say he is not even on his level, like the other poster above said, that is just preposterous.

Like you said, and I agree with you, this conversation is just impossible to have a clear answer, just way too many variables involve and both sides can make arguments for their guy until the cows come home.

[Wolverine_Joe]

21 hours ago, lancerman said:

Russell won 11

 

in the 60's against vastly inferior competition.  there were like 8 to 11 nba teams.    there's a reason why nobody puts russell as #1.   MJ is the absolute GOAT in the nba.  Kareem gets some votes, but nobody else should unless Bron goes on a crazy run for next 8-9 years.