Bill Barnwell of Grantland ranks Tom Brady's 2007 season as best ever by a QB

[jmt57]

Bill Barnwell of Grantland goes through the the last 50+ years and ranks them heavyweight boxing style, chronologically listing which player held The Quarterback Championship Belt.

Bill Barnwell names the best QBs throughout NFL history - Grantland

"The best season by a quarterback in NFL history, bar none."​

It's a nice trip down memory lane, but I feel that Barnwell places far too much credence into MVP voting rather than relying on original thought. For example, he lists Bob Griese as the best QB from 1971-73 rather than Roger Staubach, based on Griese's finishing ahead of Staubach for All-Pro and MVP voting during that time. Regardless of the voting - which was weighted heavily because Miami made it to the Super Bowl each of those years, winning twice - the reality in my opinion is that Staubach was the league's best QB in 71 and 73, and Daryl Lamonica was better than either of them in 72.​

Barnwell is usually a very good writer, but his flawed (or perhaps simply lazy) logic continues throughout the piece: he only names Brady as his best QB in one single year, 2007; guess who he names as the league's best QB in every other season from 2003 to 2009? Then from 2010 to 2012 it's Aaron Rodgers over Manning, with Brady barely garnering even any consideration at all, and Drew Brees getting no mention whatsoever.​

 

[Uncle Rico]

Kudos to him for an original take, and it's great he concedes that Brady 07 was best ever.


But I think his logic isn't just flawed. It's inconsistent.

2003-2006:

Whither Tom Brady? I can make a pretty good case against him. Manning, not Brady, was co-MVP in 2003 and lone MVP in 2004, even though Brady was winning his second and third Super Bowls those seasons. Brady arguably outplayed Manning in 2005, leading the league in passing yards, but his team went 10-6 and lost comfortably to the Broncos in the playoffs, while Manning went 14-2 and managed to beat Brady to the All-Pro team. And then, in 2006, Manning had better numbers than Brady and finally beat him in the playoffs, en route to his Super Bowl win. There's no year in that span when Brady clearly surpasses Manning in the eyes of the voting electorate or the public (win fetishists/editors-in-chief aside). That doesn't happen until 2007.

Reading the whole thing, many of these QBs' "reign" dovetails with, you know, winning ... but somehow winning can't be counted in Brady's favor?

 

[jmt57]

Kudos to him for an original take, and it's great he concedes that Brady 07 was best ever.


But I think his logic isn't just flawed. It's inconsistent.

2003-2006:




Reading the whole thing, many of these QBs' "reign" dovetails with, you know, winning ... but somehow winning can't be counted in Brady's favor?

I agree Barnwell's logic is not only flawed - but also inconsistent. From 2000-06 he has Manning's stats and MVP's trumping Brady's rings, but then in 2010 he has Rodgers' playoffs trumping Brady's numbers and MVP.

 

[BSR]

I don't have a huge problem with it. I would give Brady 2004 and 2010. Manning was right there with him in 2004 so its a close call. Rodgers in 2010 doesn't make any sense since it was his worst year of the last five and didn't even make the pro bowl. Meanwhile Brady won unanimous MVP and had great numbers.

 

[lurker1965]

I did not waste my time. Rule changes every year etc. and different eras.

If you told Y.A. Tittle (pictures including the kneeling in the end zone bleeding from the head in black and white) that you could have 16 games, no one can touch a receiver after five yards, defenders can't hit you in the head if you are in the pocket, they can't hit you below the knee if you are in the pocket, and they can't hit you at all after you throw, and you get multi-millions of dollars...

Anyway, guys like him (and Otto Graham, and Johnny Unitas, and many more) would beg to sign up.

Oh and any list without the guy(s) who tactically changed the QB from a RB who threw in desperation to a passer, Sammy Baugh (and Sid Luckman, the last good Bears QB ) is worthless.

 

[Oinko]

I think Brady got a little bit of a skewed view because it was assumed he was a good contributor to a dynasty team. Now that it's become more clear than ever that HE was the dynasty, even for the Super Bowls (elite performance sustained for 12 years, more Super Bowl trips, etc.), his stock should be retroactively raised higher for those pre-2007 years. He wasn't getting as many votes and kudos as he should have been.

I think he's better than Peyton. It's not just the Super Bowl disparity, but Peyton has got quite a few years of early exit from the postseason. Tom Brady is a "tough out" every year. Many trips deep into the playoffs. Obviously, 5 trips to the big dance.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

I did not waste my time. Rule changes every year etc. and different eras.

If you told Y.A. Tittle (pictures including the kneeling in the end zone bleeding from the head in black and white) that you could have 16 games, no one can touch a receiver after five yards, defenders can't hit you in the head if you are in the pocket, they can't hit you below the knee if you are in the pocket, and they can't hit you at all after you throw, and you get multi-millions of dollars...

Anyway, guys like him (and Otto Graham, and Johnny Unitas, and many more) would beg to sign up.

Oh and any list without the guy(s) who tactically changed the QB from a RB who threw in desperation to a passer, Sammy Baugh (and Sid Luckman, the last good Bears QB ) is worthless.

man you are preaching to the choir when you start talking ya tittle and johnny u to me. but i think there's a few guys back in the day that get a bit overlooked. roman gabriel, don meredith, fran tarkenton and sonny jurgensen. just saying all those guys are a bit underated.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Maybe I'm a homer, but his list looks like crap to me after Unitis, Tittle, and a few others. A nice walk down memory lane, but really? Namath "reigned" over something at some point? Other than the press, I don't see it. And Brady was a one-year wonder, about on the same level as Namath, just way later?

I'm thinking... "Feh." I'm giving Brady 2003-2004, myself. I just can't see his staying power being the same as Rich Gannon's.

 

[goheels22002]

I did not waste my time. Rule changes every year etc. and different eras.

If you told Y.A. Tittle (pictures including the kneeling in the end zone bleeding from the head in black and white) that you could have 16 games, no one can touch a receiver after five yards, defenders can't hit you in the head if you are in the pocket, they can't hit you below the knee if you are in the pocket, and they can't hit you at all after you throw, and you get multi-millions of dollars...

Anyway, guys like him (and Otto Graham, and Johnny Unitas, and many more) would beg to sign up.

Oh and any list without the guy(s) who tactically changed the QB from a RB who threw in desperation to a passer, Sammy Baugh (and Sid Luckman, the last good Bears QB ) is worthless.

Otto Graham's 25 TD season in 1947 and his 65% completion season in 1953 were so outside the norm, they have to be considered as the best ever for a passer. Yet, the defenses were so slow and the quality of the defensive schemes to interrupt a passing game so non-existent, it's hard to compare.

 

[sly24]

I think Brady deserves way more credit for his 2006 season. That receiver corps was the worst one I can remember and we almost made it to the superbowl.

 

[lurker1965]

Otto Graham's 25 TD season in 1947 and his 65% completion season in 1953 were so outside the norm, they have to be considered as the best ever for a passer. Yet, the defenses were so slow and the quality of the defensive schemes to interrupt a passing game so non-existent, it's hard to compare.

That and the best athletes were going into baseball or boxing adds a taint to some old stats.

It is why the left handed QB is so rare compared to left handers in the general population. Lefties with any throwing ability were steered toward pitching.

 

[ausbacker]

Any person who puts Peyton Manning ahead of Tom Brady isn't worth reading.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Any person who puts Peyton Manning ahead of Tom Brady isn't worth reading.

Regular season wise, Peyton Manning might be slightly ahead of TFB. But playoffs, it's not even close, Manning is only slightly above average, even the year they won the SB, Manning had only 4 TD passes in the playoffs and 7 INTs. He didn't deserve the SB MVP, that was a joke, one running back had 113 yards and another had 77, the running game saved his ass in that SB. Manning was 25 for 38, 247 yards with 1 TD and 1 int. Running game and good defense/Chicago's crappy offense (scored only 10 points) helped Indy win that game.

 

[supafly]

Any person who puts Peyton Manning ahead of Tom Brady isn't worth reading.

The comparison of the winningest postseason QB in NFL history to the guy who has lost the most games in NFL history (and also gone one and done in 7 of his 11 appearances) doesn't make sense to you?

He didn't deserve the SB MVP, that was a joke, one running back had 113 yards and another had 77, the running game saved his ass in that SB. Manning was 25 for 38, 247 yards with 1 TD and 1 int. Running game and good defense/Chicago's crappy offense (scored only 10 points) helped Indy win that game.

The inability of the NEP to gain one lousy first down combined with blowing the biggest halftime conference championship lead in NFL history allowed the Indy Colts to win that game. Nothing else.