Will Tom Brady Become The Greatest...

[diamondbull424]

1 minute ago, lancerman said:

Disagree. Someone has to overtake Brady at this point. It's not going to retroactively go to Manning. Brady plays another 2 years and he likely passes Manning's stats. Brady's playoff stats will never be surpassed as it is. As far as MVP's just having 3 puts Brady in elite tier with Unitas/Brown/Favre. Manning has two more, but he was practically handed the MVP. Also Brady's most likely going to be 1st team All Decade at QB again. 

Also I doubt Belichick is at much longer after Brady retires. He's 65 and already coached 24 seasons just as a HC (not including the  20 other years he was in the league not as a HC). So he's in his mid 60's and clocked in over 40 years as a coach. Nobodies ever coaches past 72.

Both Brady and Bellichick are incredibly competitive. With how linked the two are it’s quite easy for me to see Bellichick coaching a few seasons after Brady (if not leaving New England outright) to separate and enhance his legacy over the one that is tied to Brady’s achievements. 72 still gives him another 7 years.

And I disagree. Normally a previous player can’t overtake another but in the case of Brady the main argument used for him over Manning was the Super Bowls. If Bellichick were to go elsewhere and build another dynasty, that has the potential to devalue Brady’s current accomplishments as him having simply been more of a cog in the Bellichick machine vs the most fundamental piece.

The only reason Phil Jackson’s success outside of the Bulls didn’t have the potential to diminish MJ as the GOAT was because there was no player of similar dominance to Jordan in his generation. Someone that had more individuals awards and accomplishments, but just failed in the team accomplishments. To put it in perspective. Jordan had the individual success of Manning, the efficiency numbers of Rodgers, and the championship success of Brady. So he is clear cut the GOAT, whereas Brady still hasn’t completely elevated above the debate. He could still be pulled back down.

[lancerman]

Just now, diamondbull424 said:

Both Brady and Bellichick are incredibly competitive. With how linked the two are it’s quite easy for me to see Bellichick coaching a few seasons after Brady (if not leaving New England outright) to separate and enhance his legacy over the one that is tied to Brady’s achievements. 72 still gives him another 7 years.

And I disagree. Normally a previous player can’t overtake another but in the case of Brady the main argument used for him over Manning was the Super Bowls. If Bellichick were to go elsewhere and build another dynasty, that has the potential to devalue Brady’s current accomplishments as him having simply been more of a cog in the Bellichick machine vs the most fundamental piece.

The only reason Phil Jackson’s success outside of the Bulls didn’t have the potential to diminish MJ as the GOAT was because there was no player of similar dominance to Jordan in his generation. Someone that had more individuals awards and accomplishments, but just failed in the team accomplishments. To put it in perspective. Jordan had the individual success of Manning, the efficiency numbers of Rodgers, and the championship success of Brady. So he is clear cut the GOAT, whereas Brady still hasn’t completely elevated above the debate. He could still be pulled back down.

Jordan's not even the statistical best player ever. That's Wilt. Jordan's closer to Brady. He's the second best in rings (next to Russell) and second best in stats (next to Wilt) and the fact that the two are so far apart in the other categories makes Jordan number one. 

Brady has the best combination of bulk stats (where Manning leads) and efficiency (where Rodgers leads) and he dominates both in playoffs. Belichick winning somewhere else isn't going to hurt him anymore than the Niner's winning a title with Siefert and Young hurt Montana. 

Also here's the issue, it's very likely both Brees and Brady pass Manning on all his stats records. And Manning's going to still have the playoff performance holding him back. 

I also really doubt Belichick plays much longer than Brady. And it's going to be an uphill battle having him go anywhere else. 

[diamondbull424]

7 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Jordan's not even the statistical best player ever. That's Wilt. Jordan's closer to Brady. He's the second best in rings (next to Russell) and second best in stats (next to Wilt) and the fact that the two are so far apart in the other categories makes Jordan number one. 

Brady has the best combination of bulk stats (where Manning leads) and efficiency (where Rodgers leads) and he dominates both in playoffs. Belichick winning somewhere else isn't going to hurt him anymore than the Niner's winning a title with Siefert and Young hurt Montana. 

Also here's the issue, it's very likely both Brees and Brady pass Manning on all his stats records. And Manning's going to still have the playoff performance holding him back. 

I also really doubt Belichick plays much longer than Brady. And it's going to be an uphill battle having him go anywhere else. 

Wilt played in a completely different era where another player averaged a triple double, which hasn’t been done since the current “soft” NBA that Westbrook plays in now (though Westbrook is still a great player obviously). In his era no one had the same statistical achievement as Jordan and no one combined individual success (first team NBA offense and defense) along with rings.

Brady MIGHT surpass Manning in bulk stats, but Manning still outperformed Brady statistically when side by side. It hasn’t been until recently that Brady has boosted his playoff efficiency and regular season numbers above Manning... and that has come in a league where guys like Kirk Cousins are throwing for similar yardage. Not as impressive. Brady also didn’t go 6/6 in Championship games like Jordan. There is literally no comparison for Brady to be in Jordan’s class of GOAT.

[ILoveTheVikings]

39 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

Perhaps. But once he retires the narrative has the potential to change. Brady’s narrative could easily change if the Bellichick feud results in him going to another team and building another Suber Bowl contender without Brady. And the Patriots falling apart without Bellichick.

Because right now both are so closely linked. But in such a scenario as the one above, Brady’s perceived impact would decrease. And then we’re left with the context of how many first team All Pros does he have (3) compared to Manning’s (7), or how many MVPs (3) compared to Manning’s (4), and the performance stats.

As of right now the Super Bowls have inflated Brady’s value in the NFL narrative, but say Bellichick goes to the Packers in another year and leads them to multiple Super Bowl wins, does Brady’s legacy not take a hit? I believe it does.

Per game stats between Manning and Tom are essentially identical and even ever so slightly favor Tom depending on if you'd rather have 0.1 td's and 9 more yards a game (Manning) or 0.3 less int's a game (Tom).

Tom: 97.6 rating

Manning: 96.5 rating

Tom: 1.9 td's

Manning: 2 td's

Tom: 0.6 int's

Manning: 0.9 int's

Tom: 261.5 yards on 34.8 attempts

Manning: 270.5 yards on 35.3 attempts

 

 

[lancerman]

7 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

Wilt played in a completely different era where another player averaged a triple double, which hasn’t been done since the current “soft” NBA that Westbrook plays in now (though Westbrook is still a great player obviously). In his era no one had the same statistical achievement as Jordan and no one combined individual success (first team NBA offense and defense) along with rings.

Brady MIGHT surpass Manning in bulk stats, but Manning still outperformed Brady statistically when side by side. It hasn’t been until recently that Brady has boosted his playoff efficiency and regular season numbers above Manning... and that has come in a league where guys like Kirk Cousins are throwing for similar yardage. Not as impressive. Brady also didn’t go 6/6 in Championship games like Jordan. There is literally no comparison for Brady to be in Jordan’s class of GOAT.

Jordan's not the best statistical player (that's Wilt), Jordan's not the best athlete to play (that's Lebron), Jordan doesn't have the most rings (that's Russell), Jordan has the best coach of his era, and easily a top two of all time, who went to as many finals without as he did with him and his record is only one game different,  Jordan had the most stacked team of his era, Jordan played in one of the least competitive era's of his sport (compared to the 80's, 00's, 10's)

My point was NEVER that Brady was better than Jordan. My point was that lots of people have this dogmatic devotion to Jordan because he was the guy everyone called GOAT 25 years ago (IE the formative years of a lot of sports fans) and marketing and his legend grew to a point where it became sacrilegious to critique him. And many people use critiques that equally apply to Jordan to tear others down so they can prop him up. 

It's okay to think he's the GOAT athlete (I would personally never go with a team sport athlete), but the arguments people have been using are borderline lazy and questionable. Like nobody can say Lebron had better coaches, ownership, teams, or less competition. 

[EaglesPeteC]

Tom Brady should learn to catch first. Then maybe he'll reach Nick Foles status

[lancerman]

3 minutes ago, ILoveTheVikings said:

Per game stats between Manning and Tom are essentially identical and even ever so slightly favor Tom depending on if you'd rather have 0.1 td's and 9 more yards a game (Manning) or 0.3 less int's a game (Tom).

Tom: 97.6 rating

Manning: 96.5 rating

Tom: 1.9 td's

Manning: 2 td's

Tom: 0.6 int's

Manning: 0.9 int's

Tom: 261.5 yards on 34.8 attempts

Manning: 270.5 yards on 35.3 attempts

 

 

This and when you compare stats with Rodgers in the era they actually played together (IE not counting 2001-2007, which still takes away Brady's best year) the stat line is pretty similar as well. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

16 hours ago, lancerman said:

Joe's whole argument against Brady was that he beat up on crappy 80』s AFC teams in the four Super Bowl's he did make and his defense made sure those games were never in question 

I think era and/or competition is probably a better argument. 

As for who Joe faced in the Super Bowl, those teams weren't crappy. The 1981 Bengals were a pretty good team all around with Kenny Anderson having an MVP year. The 1984 Dolphins were 14-2 with Dan Marino again having an MVP season. 1988 The Bengals had their best season ever with Boomer Esiason again as MVP. 1989 Broncos had a prime Elway, plus a great defense that year. Only two of those games the defense completely shut down. The Bengals in both 1981 and 1988 were competitive up until the 4th quarter. The 1988 team had a lead down to the last 32 seconds in the game. 

[childofpudding]

4 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

There are so many angles it's tough to pick.  Cheater?  Poor loser?  Cake walk conference, cake walk playoff route to the Super Bowl?  Defense giving up an average of 20 points in the playoffs, which is better than any of the other big three elite quarterbacks of his era (P. Manning, Rodgers, Brees) by at least 5 points each? 

Too many choices. 

I like the whole Alex Guerrero rubbing lotion on his legs, eating weird food and dressing like an idiot angle myself. But hey, you do you!

[Buddyboy]

In the storied history of NFL QBs, Tom Brady is certainly an elite player. Group him with the top 10

Otto Graham

Bart Starr

J Unitas

R. Staubach

J Montana

D Marino

T Aikman

J Kelly

S Young

Players are bigger by generation, have better conditioning and coaching. Rules have changed as have tactics.

[CKSteeler]

12 hours ago, lancerman said:

And again if Montana has the night Brady had last night he comfortably wins every Super Bowl he was ever in. The two that were over by half time had more to do with his defense being very good. 

I mean, you watched last night. Tell me, how many first half points did the Patriots put up? Last year, their offense was literally in the red. They had cost their team more points than they scored. The Patriots had 3 points late into the second quarter. I don't care how many yards Brady had accumulated. The points weren't there.

What you're saying is simply wrong. Brady's teams have started slow. You as a Patriots fan know full well how getting on top of teams early changes everything. Montana's defenses didn't build those leads in those two blowouts. The offense came out and racked up points with pretty much flawless QB play.

[lancerman]

6 hours ago, CKSteeler said:

I mean, you watched last night. Tell me, how many first half points did the Patriots put up? Last year, their offense was literally in the red. They had cost their team more points than they scored. The Patriots had 3 points late into the second quarter. I don't care how many yards Brady had accumulated. The points weren't there.

What you're saying is simply wrong. Brady's teams have started slow. You as a Patriots fan know full well how getting on top of teams early changes everything. Montana's defenses didn't build those leads in those two blowouts. The offense came out and racked up points with pretty much flawless QB play.

It's not difficult to build a lead when your defense holds your opponent to 16, 16, and 10 in your last 3 Super  Brady would have won nearly ever Super Bowls. 

Also let me refer you to Super Bowl XXIII where Joe Montana put up a whopping 3 points in the first half. Oh and went into the 4th quarter with 6 points on the board. And then needed a little thing called "the drive" at the end of the game to overcome the massive 16 points the Bengals put up. So no you're wrong. 

Anybody whose ever watched Montana's Super Bowls knows he NEVER had to deal with a team doing anything like what happened last night. He'd be 0-4 if his defense put up that performance. And if you think otherwise, I have to question if you even watched those games. Despite popular opinion, Montana's defenses kept all those games in check for him. Brady's performance last night would make him 4-0 against the teams Montana played.

[TheDILinator]

The Tom Brady GOAT talk is borderline insanity - and I'm a Mental Health Professional, so I know insanity when I see it!    

The guy is the Derek Jeter of the NFL, a very good - great even - player, who is probably the GOAT postseason player in his sport, and has won a bunch of Championships on a perennially good, and popular team.  That doesn't even come close to making him, or Jeter, the GOAT overall in their sport.  It's complete rose-colored glasses to see Brady as that, and ignores not only the incredibly average aspects of Brady's career, as well as insults the truly amazing exploits of other great QBs over the years.  

Here is the reality:  Brady is a system QB.  You take him off the Pats, and he's still a very good QB, but he's certainly not legendary, or getting discussed like he is, nor wearing 5 rings.  We know this (and all of you would know this if you're being honest with yourselves) because whenever some other QB is in Belicheck's "system", he looks similarly great.  Yet, when they leave that system (Matt Cassell, Jacoby Brissett, Ryan Mallett), their mediocrity becomes quite evident.  Garoppolo  is somebody who looks like he has the potential to be a legit starter in the NFL, but in spite of all the hype surrounding him currently, after he led the Niners to a strong finish, his actual stats over those 6 games and 5 starts aren't that phenomenal.  

Again, I'm NOT saying Brady isn't a great all time QB.  Just that saying he's the GOAT is shortsighted, and ignoring numerous flaws he's displayed over the years, and placing an overimportance on his postseason results.  Postseason QB GOAT?  Ok, that I can get behind.  But "all time, all time"?  No way!  Not even close in my opinion, and looking at the stats and utilizing the eye test.  Is he clutch?  Absolutely!  Maybe the most clutch QB of all time even (maybe - there's certainly other QBs like Elway that can be said about).  Again, he's very much like Jeter in that way.  But to just say he's the blanket "Best QB of all time" is laughable in my opinion. and from my informed perspective, and completely ignores the fact he's performed as he has in a very QB friendly system, under the tutelage of one of the best Coaches of all time.  

I'm sure I've already opened up a hornet's nest of ire, and I'll let you know up front I'm not going to get into an argument about this with anybody.  You're either willing to look at him outside the cliched box, or you're not.  I don't do argumentation on the internet.  I just wanted to throw this counterpoint out there.  However, I will up the ante on the ire, by saying that numerous times while watching the game the other night, particularly in the second half, Brady looked "old" in my opinion, having to wind up and heave almost every pass he made.  Heck, I hadn't seen such a labored effort to pass the football since - wait for it - Tim Tebow!    Thank goodness for Brady and the Patriots that the Eagles defenders were inexplicably so far off the Patriots receivers, that those lobbed passes didn't cause them trouble.  But again, that's the eye test, and not something any mainstream writer whose job it is to shill for the common narrative, is going to point out.  We're all supposed to fall in line and worship Brady as the GOAT, regardless of whether that really makes any sense from a broader vantage point.  

FWIW, I'm a fan of Michigan, and I think there's a lot to like about Brady.  Heck, I'd take him on any of my favorite teams anyday!  I even respect what he's accomplished over the years, from a neutral perspective.  As I've said, dude is as clutch, and as good in the postseason as they come!  But he's just not the GOAT, seriously...  I'd rather having Peyton Manning than him, just to name a recent QB.  He was no "system QB", as he proved winning Super Bowls, and finding success on multiple teams.  Maybe Brady could have done so too, but we'll never know...  And from where I'm sitting, just watching his play, he'd need a strong supporting cast, or a similar offensive system to Belicheck's, to find similar success.  

Ok, alternative viewpoint finished!  Feel free to rage now!    (Just know I'm not getting drawn into argumentation or debate about it.)

[TecmoSuperJoe]

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

It's not difficult to build a lead when your defense holds your opponent to 16, 16, and 10 in your last 3 Super  Brady would have won nearly ever Super Bowls. 

Also let me refer you to Super Bowl XXIII where Joe Montana put up a whopping 3 points in the first half. Oh and went into the 4th quarter with 6 points on the board. And then needed a little thing called "the drive" at the end of the game to overcome the massive 16 points the Bengals put up. So no you're wrong. 

Anybody whose ever watched Montana's Super Bowls knows he NEVER had to deal with a team doing anything like what happened last night. He'd be 0-4 if his defense put up that performance. And if you think otherwise, I have to question if you even watched those games. Despite popular opinion, Montana's defenses kept all those games in check for him. Brady's performance last night would make him 4-0 against the teams Montana played.

The way your defense plays also depends on your offense to a degree. If the 49ers kept stalling drives in those Super Bowls, The Dolphins and Bengals both times would have more opportunities on offense. The 49ers only won the turnover battle in one of those three games. In the Dolphins it was split twice a piece, and against the Bengals the second time they lost the turnover battle two to one. 49ers dominated in time of possession in the first and second Super Bowls for Montana. The Broncos of course was a complete blowout, and the 49ers dominated everything from start to finish. 

If the 49ers had to have a shootout in those days, it could go either way. Just like with the Patriots and Eagles the other night. He's dealt with a shootout in the past, it just wasn't the Super Bowl. Montana would carve up a defense if it was lackluster. He's carved up quality defenses too. 

All this doesn't really matter though. Brady isn't at fault for losing the game against the Eagles. Don't see why it would impact his legacy just because the defense was terrible. 

[lancerman]

And that's fair, but let's not start a narrative that Montana always played with a huge lead. The one time he had to make a comeback in the Super Bowl was in a game where he led his team to 6 point through three quarters. Otherwise, his defense his opposition in check where he just needed to play a very steady game, and in the case of the Broncos game his team ate up Elway for breakfast and was getting turnovers and virtually shutting down a very good offense. 

So I don't think a game where Brady's defense let up 20 more points than Montana's worst defense in a Super Bowl is the argument to make. Montana never played in a shootout like that in the Super Bowl. People forget, but those defenses were brutal on opposing offenses.