Originally posted by Newjak
It's hard for me to hold that against him as the Patriots have never been good at giving Brady deep threat wide receivers. I mean he did get Moss for a year and what he did in that season.Overall I agree though his strengths have always been in the middle to short end passing game and picking defenses apart.
He's a like a surgeon on the field, and the best on out there.
Nobody cares about your fantasy team.
What Newjak said is true, but I have a hard time calling someone the unequivocal best ever when I know he can't make every throw on the field as well as some. Personnel is one thing, but his completion percentage on deep balls (20+ yards) isn't just below league average. It's been near the bottom of the league his entire career.
Now, like I said, he's so good on everything else that it almost doesn't matter. But, like, take the Randy Moss season. They win that game if Brady doesn't underthrow Moss on the game's final plays. Moss had the guy smoked.
He might still be the best ever. It's becoming harder to make the case against him. But I don't think it's a given, and there are at least a few I have as high or higher
Originally posted by Digi
Nobody cares about your fantasy team.What Newjak said is true, but I have a hard time calling someone the unequivocal best ever when I know he can't make every throw on the field as well as some. Personnel is one thing, but his completion percentage on deep balls (20+ yards) isn't just below league average. It's been near the bottom of the league his entire career.
Now, like I said, he's so good on everything else that it almost doesn't matter. But, like, take the Randy Moss season. They win that game if Brady doesn't underthrow Moss on the game's final plays. Moss had the guy smoked.
He might still be the best ever. It's becoming harder to make the case against him. But I don't think it's a given, and there are at least a few I have as high or higher
Marwash cares.
I'm glad we agree Brady is a demi god.
Now hows the Halloween whore costume coming?
Originally posted by DigiI agree when you are talking the best ever it is hard to just give it to one guy.
Nobody cares about your fantasy team.What Newjak said is true, but I have a hard time calling someone the unequivocal best ever when I know he can't make every throw on the field as well as some. Personnel is one thing, but his completion percentage on deep balls (20+ yards) isn't just below league average. It's been near the bottom of the league his entire career.
Now, like I said, he's so good on everything else that it almost doesn't matter. But, like, take the Randy Moss season. They win that game if Brady doesn't underthrow Moss on the game's final plays. Moss had the guy smoked.
He might still be the best ever. It's becoming harder to make the case against him. But I don't think it's a given, and there are at least a few I have as high or higher
I'm interested in hearing who you else you put on the same level or higher than Brady?
It's not that simple, TI. Also, lmao @Aikman. Aikman might crack my top 100.
Originally posted by Newjak
I agree when you are talking the best ever it is hard to just give it to one guy.I'm interested in hearing who you else you put on the same level or higher than Brady?
On the short list, Manning, Montana, Marino. I also think there's a case for Rodgers and Favre, but they require a bit more explanation.
If you count rings, it's over for Marino. I agree it's a slight knock, but that's a team award. But Marino's 5000 yd., 48 TD season is likely the best of all time by a fair margin. Given the rules in the league at the time, and how much less they favored passing than about 2005 onward, someone would have to throw up 6K and 60 today before I'd put them in the same discussion. I think if he had gotten a ring, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Before his arm turned into a noodle, Manning could make every throw and was the smartest in his generation. He has pretty much every record. And while he'll forever lose points to Brady because of championships, he DOES have a ring, and played in two more Super Bowls. His playoff credentials aren't nearly as suspect as many think. I just think a simple eyeball test shows that he was the best QB in his generation, Brady included, and claiming otherwise is putting rose colored glasses to look at Brady, who was a 25-TD guy for most of his career and has the best coach of all-time.
Montana might require the least justification. When the only thing detractors can come up with is to point to the talent around him, he's got a damn good case. Numbers, efficiency, rings, etc. He's still the safest pick in terms of being able to defend it against anyone.
I also think there's a case to be made for Favre. It starts with his unbelievable record in and ability to play well in cold and sh*tty weather. If football was only played on turf in domes, I'd take him out. But if it's a mess out there, he is literally THE pick. People remember his last few years, which were too mistake prone. But that's a horrible metric to use. When he was three-peating as MVP he was as good as anyone's ever been, with a canon arm.
There's also some very interesting advanced metrics out there on interceptions. Basically, they aren't all the same in terms of value. Say your team is down two touchdowns in the second half. Would you want a QB who throws it downfield more often to try to catch up, but throws picks more often? Or a QB who barely throws any picks but doesn't push the ball downfield? A writer for FiveThirtyEight that I enjoy contends that the risk-taker is the better of the two in terms of expected win percentage. And it's a huge knock on guys like Brady and - wait for it - Aaron Rodgers...who has a spotless TD-to-INT ratio but pushes it downfield much less often than league average when he's behind.
This can apply to INTs at any point in the game as well. A dump-off INT is much worse than a 40-yard bomb, which can end up being equivalent to a punt anyway.
Rodgers is in a similar boat with Brady. He has the arm strength and deep ball accuracy that Brady lacks, and the uncanny short-to-intermediate precision. And a ring, and two MVPs (with more likely coming). He just doesn't push the ball downfield as much. Like Brady, it hardly matters because he's so good at everything else. But it's the lone significant flaw in his game. His efficiency numbers are always going to look better than Favre's, so analysts will always favor him, but I'm not sure I'd want him over Favre in all situations.
I've seen efficiency and dual threat arguments for Steve Young, and dual threat/arm strength arguments for Elway, but I think those two are on the fringes of the debate.
So, bringing all this to a close, I'd have Brady last among those considered. But it's hardly a knock, because I can understand the argument for any of them. It's incredibly close, making it one of the more fun debates in sports imo. If forced to rank them...I dunno. It's between Marino and Manning for me, followed closely by Montana, then Favre, then Brady. I don't place Rodgers yet, but his potential ceiling is at or above any of these guys. But the eight I've mentioned are, imo, the only ones that can be mentioned. I can't imagine any other QB getting mentioned in this discussion, unless it's a nostalgia-based argument for Unitas or Otto Graham or something.
...
Also, do you have Star Wars tickets yet? I've been meaning to text you. We should do opening night/weekend if you're not already planning on it.
Originally posted by DigiI think you have a good list there and it's hard to disagree with what you are saying.
It's not that simple, TI. Also, lmao @Aikman. Aikman might crack my top 100.On the short list, Manning, Montana, Marino. I also think there's a case for Rodgers and Favre, but they require a bit more explanation.
If you count rings, it's over for Marino. I agree it's a slight knock, but that's a team award. But Marino's 5000 yd., 48 TD season is likely the best of all time by a fair margin. Given the rules in the league at the time, and how much less they favored passing than about 2005 onward, someone would have to throw up 6K and 60 today before I'd put them in the same discussion. I think if he had gotten a ring, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Before his arm turned into a noodle, Manning could make every throw and was the smartest in his generation. He has pretty much every record. And while he'll forever lose points to Brady because of championships, he DOES have a ring, and played in two more Super Bowls. His playoff credentials aren't nearly as suspect as many think. I just think a simple eyeball test shows that he was the best QB in his generation, Brady included, and claiming otherwise is putting rose colored glasses to look at Brady, who was a 25-TD guy for most of his career and has the best coach of all-time.
Montana might require the least justification. When the only thing detractors can come up with is to point to the talent around him, he's got a damn good case. Numbers, efficiency, rings, etc. He's still the safest pick in terms of being able to defend it against anyone.
I also think there's a case to be made for Favre. It starts with his unbelievable record in and ability to play well in cold and sh*tty weather. If football was only played on turf in domes, I'd take him out. But if it's a mess out there, he is literally THE pick. People remember his last few years, which were too mistake prone. But that's a horrible metric to use. When he was three-peating as MVP he was as good as anyone's ever been, with a canon arm.
There's also some very interesting advanced metrics out there on interceptions. Basically, they aren't all the same in terms of value. Say your team is down two touchdowns in the second half. Would you want a QB who throws it downfield more often to try to catch up, but throws picks more often? Or a QB who barely throws any picks but doesn't push the ball downfield? A writer for FiveThirtyEight that I enjoy contends that the risk-taker is the better of the two in terms of expected win percentage. And it's a huge knock on guys like Brady and - wait for it - Aaron Rodgers...who has a spotless TD-to-INT ratio but pushes it downfield much less often than league average when he's behind.
This can apply to INTs at any point in the game as well. A dump-off INT is much worse than a 40-yard bomb, which can end up being equivalent to a punt anyway.
Rodgers is in a similar boat with Brady. He has the arm strength and deep ball accuracy that Brady lacks, and the uncanny short-to-intermediate precision. And a ring, and two MVPs (with more likely coming). He just doesn't push the ball downfield as much. Like Brady, it hardly matters because he's so good at everything else. But it's the lone significant flaw in his game. His efficiency numbers are always going to look better than Favre's, so analysts will always favor him, but I'm not sure I'd want him over Favre in all situations.
I've seen efficiency and dual threat arguments for Steve Young, and dual threat/arm strength arguments for Elway, but I think those two are on the fringes of the debate.
So, bringing all this to a close, I'd have Brady last among those considered. But it's hardly a knock, because I can understand the argument for any of them. It's incredibly close, making it one of the more fun debates in sports imo. If forced to rank them...I dunno. It's between Marino and Manning for me, followed closely by Montana, then Favre, then Brady. I don't place Rodgers yet, but his potential ceiling is at or above any of these guys. But the eight I've mentioned are, imo, the only ones that can be mentioned. I can't imagine any other QB getting mentioned in this discussion, unless it's a nostalgia-based argument for Unitas or Otto Graham or something.
...
Also, do you have Star Wars tickets yet? I've been meaning to text you. We should do opening night/weekend if you're not already planning on it.
Personally I've always had a hard time pushing Favre ahead of the others on your list. Not because I think he is bad but because he was always the absolute embodiment of the classic gunslinger. He was high risk high reward all the time every time. He had a laser guided rocket for an arm but there were plenty of times he cost his teams wins because of his shoot for the moon mentality. Still he was an iron man of a player in outdoor weather for sure and if you needed big plays he would be my go to QB with Marino possibly being the only exception.
I'm glad you brought up rings and winning as well though. I've always hated putting ring totals and winning % into greatest all time debates because like you said they are team accomplishments. I would never even utter Trent Dilfer in the GOAT debate even though he has more super bowl wins than Marino. Still the name of the game is winning so I do like to at least look at how much a player contributes to their teams wins. Are they a Trent Dilfer who is only managing a team while their way more talented defense and running game destroy opponents? Or are they the main reason their team is winning. To which I definitely think Brady is a standout in that department. And possibly THE standout in that category. He may have the greatest coach of all time with him but Brady is an executioner on the field when it comes to putting his team in positions to win games, especially the big ones. And he is the main contributor of that one his team in my opinion. I would say only Aaron Rogers is currently as important to his team winning as Brady is. If I were facing an opposing QB I'm not sure there would be anybody more scary than Tom Brady with the ball in his hands and the game on the line.
As for the Peyton Tom debate. It is a toss up for me right now. Manning has the numbers edge but he has consistently had the better weapons than Brady has. Peyton does have the stronger arm and is the smartest QB imo to ever play on field signal caller. He definitely is overall more well rounded. But Brady is an efficiency machine. He rules the short and medium game. If Peyton retires soon and Brady can still play high level football for a few more years maybe I will give Brady the nod simply on longevity but that is a major if.
Marino to me will always be the league's mythic tragic figure. His feats seemed almost superhuman at the time and like you said they came in a period where the passing game was just starting to become the modern version of itself. So it's hard to argue against him being number one. In most people's eyes Marino is the NFL's Hercules.
If Marino is Hercules than Montana would be Achilles though. And Achilles was all about winning which Montana did and did well. He is definitely the safe pick.
Honestly depending on the type of team I wanted to build I could see picking anyone of these players to be my QB.
Of course I tend to think anyone declaring a sport's great of all time to definitely be one player is silly. There are so many variables that go into what makes a great amazing player that I don't think to many people can be wrong. Hence I prefer to talk about the top players rather than one single player being the all time best.
The only exception to this rule for me would be Micheal Jordan from the NBA.
And yes I do plan on going to the premiere/weekend showing at some time. Text so we can work out a time to go. I'm planning on dressing up as well.
I'm from New England. Don't care for football though. Although I do get annoyed whenever social media is blown up with people spouting vitriol over Tom Brady. From what little I know, it seems as if the NFL is a real shit organization.
But Tom Brady seems like a nice guy, clearly talented. Folks who stand out and do particularly well at something become so immediately polarizing because of the over-exposure.
Originally posted by Quincy
I'm from New England. Don't care for football though. Although I do get annoyed whenever social media is blown up with people spouting vitriol over Tom Brady. From what little I know, it seems as if the NFL is a real shit organization.But Tom Brady seems like a nice guy, clearly talented. Folks who stand out and do particularly well at something become so immediately polarizing because of the over-exposure.
Yes and yes. The NFL's commissioner is approaching FIFA levels of incompetence and corruption. Brady's kind of a smug bastard but on the list of player offenses, that's incredibly mild. By all accounts he's one of the best ever, and will be remembered as such.