If Brady expects to be "considered" the best.....

[Fixit]

Troy Aikman should only be slightly closer to the G.O.A.T. discussion than I am.

 

[New England Seahawks]

He didn't have much time left on the clock in the last 2 super bowls, a game the seahawks would know nothing about. 3-5 on the road this year...let's see how good you are away from seattle.

Wow, we're talking about Tom Brady, and you attack the Seahawks? Awesome.

As far as "didn't have much time"...let's see...

Superbowl XLII - Drive started at their own 26 with 29 seconds left. They just needed to get in FG range. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.

Superbowl XL - Drive started at their own 20 with 57 seconds left. Need to go 80 yds and TD to win the game.

In both scenarios, it's not like the game was completely out of reach. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Deus Irae]

Wow, we're talking about Tom Brady, and you attack the Seahawks? Awesome.

As far as "didn't have much time"...let's see...

Superbowl XLII - Drive started at their own 26 with 29 seconds left. They just needed to get in FG range. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.

Superbowl XL - Drive started at their own 20 with 57 seconds left. Need to go 80 yds and TD to win the game.

In both scenarios, it's not like the game was completely out of reach. That's all I'm saying.

You seem not to grasp the whole "Time + timeouts v. distance" thing. After all, technically speaking, any game with an 8 point or less difference is "difficult, not impossible" with even one second on the clock and the ball 99 yards away from the end zone.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Wow, we're talking about Tom Brady, and you attack the Seahawks? Awesome.

As far as "didn't have much time"...let's see...

Superbowl XLII - Drive started at their own 26 with 29 seconds left. They just needed to get in FG range. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.

Superbowl XL - Drive started at their own 20 with 57 seconds left. Need to go 80 yds and TD to win the game.

In both scenarios, it's not like the game was completely out of reach. That's all I'm saying.

As far as didn't have much time I guess he didn't...

Go home little seachicken. Come back when you can bring something intelligent to the discussion.

 

[MassPats38]

You seem not to grasp the whole "Time + timeouts v. distance" thing. After all, technically speaking, any game with an 8 point or less difference is "difficult, not impossible" with even one second on the clock and the ball 99 yards away from the end zone.

Back off, Deus. He's just upset Jim Zorn and Matt Hasslebeck were not included in the G.O.A.T. discussion.

 

[New England Seahawks]

You seem not to grasp the whole "Time + timeouts v. distance" thing. After all, technically speaking, any game with an 8 point or less difference is "difficult, not impossible" with even one second on the clock and the ball 99 yards away from the end zone.

You seem to not grasp that there's a huge difference between 1 second and 57 seconds. Yes, I get that he had 0 timeouts in the 1st game, and 1 timeout in the 2nd. If you're a clutch QB, going 39 yards (assuming opponent's 35 yd line) in 29 seconds with 0 timeouts left is not a monumental feat. Neither is going 80 yards with almost a minute left and 1 timeout. With an elite QB like Brady, I like my chances.

 

[New England Seahawks]

As far as didn't have much time I guess he didn't...

Go home little seachicken. Come back when you can bring something intelligent to the discussion.

"Intelligent"... you mean like name-calling? LOL! :rocker:

 

[Sivy]

The last two superbowls, the games ended with Brady and the offense on the field with a chance to tie or win the game.

In the SF game, Brady had a chance down 38-31 and about 2 min left to drive his team for the tie score. He didn't get past their own 12 yd line.

In the Ravens game, Brady and the offense had the ball around mid field and 2 min left to put the game away, and didn't.

IN the first giants superbowl, he led what should have been the winning TD, but Samuel dropped a game winning INT, the Brady had 35 seconds to work with. He also hit moss right on target in that 35 seconds.

2nd superbowl, you're right, its his fault once again, the D cant hold, and Welker, Branch and AH all drop passes on the last drive.

SF game, tell me any other QB that could put an entire team on his back and come back being down 31-3?

The Ravens game, the FG was no good and thats a fact.

 

[Clonamery]

Back off, Deus. He's just upset Jim Zorn and Matt Hasslebeck were not included in the G.O.A.T. discussion.

My guess is that he's been a Seachicken fan for about 6 weeks.

 

[New England Seahawks]

IN the first giants superbowl, he led what should have been the winning TD, but Samuel dropped a game winning INT, the Brady had 35 seconds to work with. He also hit moss right on target in that 35 seconds.

Yeah, he did. If Moss catches that pass, then they're in FG range. As far as "should have been" the game winning TD, I don't think so. Giants had more than 2 minutes left to drive down the field for a TD, if I recall.

2nd superbowl, you're right, its his fault once again, the D cant hold, and Welker, Branch and AH all drop passes on the last drive.

You can argue that the merit of any QB hinders on the receivers' ability to catch the ball. But you credit the QB for throwing for huge yards and lots of TDs. You also have to credit him with incompletions, whether it's his fault or the receivers fault. You can't have it both ways.

SF game, tell me any other QB that could put an entire team on his back and come back being down 31-3?

Agreed. That was an awesome comeback. However, when it counted the most, they came up short.

The Ravens game, the FG was no good and thats a fact.

And Golden Tate's simultaneous catch was an INT. What's your point, and what does that have to do with the fact that they had the ball at midfield with an opportunity to close out the game, or go up by another score?

 

[Deus Irae]

You seem to not grasp that there's a huge difference between 1 second and 57 seconds. Yes, I get that he had 0 timeouts in the 1st game, and 1 timeout in the 2nd. If you're a clutch QB, going 39 yards (assuming opponent's 35 yd line) in 29 seconds with 0 timeouts left is not a monumental feat. Neither is going 80 yards with almost a minute left and 1 timeout. With an elite QB like Brady, I like my chances.

I grasp it just fine. You clearly don't, given this followup.

 

[New England Seahawks]

My guess is that he's been a Seachicken fan for about 6 weeks.

And I guess you've been a Pats fan for about 12 years. Do you even know who Steve Grogan is?

Oh, and did you even look at my join date before making that stupid comment? :rocker:

 

[Kid~Brady]

Yeah, he did. If Moss catches that pass, then they're in FG range. As far as "should have been" the game winning TD, I don't think so. Giants had more than 2 minutes left to drive down the field for a TD, if I recall.



You can argue that the merit of any QB hinders on the receivers' ability to catch the ball. But you credit the QB for throwing for huge yards and lots of TDs. You also have to credit him with incompletions, whether it's his fault or the receivers fault. You can't have it both ways.



Agreed. That was an awesome comeback. However, when it counted the most, they came up short.


And Golden Tate's simultaneous catch was an INT. What's your point, and what does that have to do with the fact that they had the ball at midfield with an opportunity to close out the game, or go up by another score?

Kyle came up short.

 

[Fixit]

You can argue that the merit of any QB hinders on the receivers' ability to catch the ball. But you credit the QB for throwing for huge yards and lots of TDs. You also have to credit him with incompletions, whether it's his fault or the receivers fault. You can't have it both ways.

This makes absolutely no ******* sense. Quarterbacks should be credited with throwing for big numbers, as that means they're putting the ball where it's supposed to go. But blaming a QB for dropped passes is asinine. Receivers are supposed to catch the ball.

Seriousy, that logic is idiotic.

 

[New England Seahawks]

This makes absolutely no ******* sense. Quarterbacks should be credited with throwing for big numbers, as that means they're putting the ball where it's supposed to go. But blaming a QB for dropped passes is asinine. Receivers are supposed to catch the ball.

Seriousy, that logic is idiotic.

And QBs are supposed to make accurate throws and good decisions, but they don't all the time. Maybe if that throw to Welker was on target, you'd be talking about 4 superbowls right now.

 

[Fixit]

And QBs are supposed to make accurate throws and good decisions, but they don't all the time. Maybe if that throw to Welker was on target, you'd be talking about 4 superbowls right now.

Was it perfect? No. Was it catchable? Absolutely.

And screw you for making me post this to show you you're wrong.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

"Intelligent"... you mean like name-calling? LOL! :rocker:

No, as in know your subject. BTW our second year placekicker had only 24 attempts all season in 2007 and was ofer over 50 and just 3 of 5 over 40. So the 35 wouldn't have meant much. Try inside the 25. His RT was lost early and the OL struggled all night. Faulk went out late and the only RB option was Maroney... He had two viable WR options and he hit the the deep option in the hands in the waning seconds...to no avail. I bet if he had Jerry Rice deep he'd have made a game of it. Last year he was dealing with a LT on a torn ACL, his all pro TE on a high ankle sprain, Branch and Ochostinko as his 2nd and 3rd WR's, BJGE and Woody at RB because one rookie RB was redshirted and the other was benched for fumbilitis. Backed up by one of the statistically worst defenses ever dragged kicking and screaming to a Superbowl... I'm not sure Montana would have fared any differently had he ever found himself in that level of predicament.

 

[New England Seahawks]

Was it perfect? No. Was it catchable? Absolutely.

And screw you for making me post this to show you you're wrong.

And Eli's throw to Tynes was catchable, and he made the catch. Yet, every one of you say it was "*********", "luck", etc.

 

[jmt57]

One issue that I have with these annual 'who is the best of all-time' debates is the amount of emphasis that is placed on the number of championships that player was a part of.

While there is no doubt that quarterback is by far the most important position in the game of football - more so now than in the past based on the way the game is played and officiated - football is still the ultimate team game.

For that reason to look solely, or even primarily on the number of championships won does not make much sense to me. On top of that the logic becomes more flawed when comparing players from different eras; as MoLewisRocks pointed out earlier in the thread, teams from previous decades did not have to contend with the double-edged sword of free agancy and the salary cap. Those rosters could be kept together for a longer period of time, making it much easier for those teams to win multiple championships.

Since it is much more difficult to win multiple championships in today's NFL than it was prior to 1993, then should that metric not be omitted, or at least devalued when comparing players across multiple eras?

 

[Fixit]

And Eli's throw to Tynes was catchable, and he made the catch. Yet, every one of you say it was "*********", "luck", etc.

Yeah, two hands on the ball is exactly as routine as trapping a catch with one hand against the top of your helmet while falling backwards and being tackled.