NFL executives rank Brady as third best QB behind Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck

RobertWeathers · Sep 12, 2015

TheBostonStraggler said:
Honestly I think some franchises almost have given up on it. It's not to say they don't want it, however, they are more interested in creating buzz and filling seats.

BB has put the blue print for winning out there (obviously it starts with a QB): (A) take advantage of every single possible advantage no matter how small. (B) Middle roster importance/careful not to devote big money to a very small amount of players. (C) Competition for every player every year -- to stay hungry for his job. (D) Defined and specific roles for every player to know 'their job'. (E) Always try to take away the opposition's biggest weapon. (F) Say little when you lose, say less when you win. (G) Extreme devotion to your craft and striving to win is the only acceptable way. (F) Take your excuses to some other team (love that about BB and TB) -- every coach and player gets their responsibility done else the failure is on you, and on you to try even harder to prepare to not make the same mistakes/failures.

I'm not saying you can win SBs this way. I'm not saying this is the only way. But I am saying this appears to create a consistent ability to compete - a consistent ability to be in position to win more games than not. I know that coaches are given such little time to succeed that putting this kind of program in place is difficult. But I would think owners and GMs would see this blueprint and strive to put it in place. IMHO their is not better way to be successful then reverse engineer a winner then mimic it as much as possible. ((I realize it is easier said than done)

And its not like these front-office clowns dont have history to go on. If you look at the last 15 Super Bowls, a majority of the QBs that have participated were not elite passing machines. They were players who overall, made good decisions, were respected in the huddle and played well in the big game.

primetime · Sep 12, 2015

TheBostonStraggler said:
Winning games then winning SBs is the yardstick of all yardsticks. Everything else is mostly blowhardery....

The quarterback is important but hardly capable of winning a game, let alone a Super Bowl, on his own. Patriots fans should recognize this, since the defense snatched defeat from the hands of victory for Brady twice (and victory from the hands of defeat at least once).

RobertWeathers · Sep 12, 2015

primetime said:
The quarterback is important but hardly capable of winning a game, let alone a Super Bowl, on his own. Patriots fans should recognize this, since the defense snatched defeat from the hands of victory for Brady twice (and victory from the hands of defeat at least once).

Exactly. The key thing - and we've heard BB say this is that its better for a QB to get out of a bad play that is called or not make a play at all than make a mistake.

Deus Irae · Sep 12, 2015

primetime said:
The quarterback is important but hardly capable of winning a game, let alone a Super Bowl, on his own. Patriots fans should recognize this, since the defense snatched defeat from the hands of victory for Brady twice (and victory from the hands of defeat at least once).

True, but a little misleading, IMO. Since the Ravens victory following the 2000 season, here are the QBs who've won the SB.

Brady (4)
Brad Johnson
Roethlisberger (2)
P. Manning
E. Manning (2)
Brees
Rodgers
Flacco
Wilson

No team has won the SB without having at least one of the following:

Elite quarterback
Quarterback on one hell of a run (i.e. Flacco with his 117.2 rating, 11 TDs, 0 Ints)
Truly elite (as in 'one of the best of the decade/history') defense

Football and the QB has become sort of like hockey and the goalie. You can win without it, but it's a much tougher route to take.

TheBostonStraggler · Sep 12, 2015

Deus Irae said:
I like Brees, but Manning's the better QB, IMO, and I don't really think it's close. I generally look at the top 4 QBs of the Manning "era" in this probable order:

Brady
P. Manning
Roethlisberger
Brees

Then I'd slot Rodgers and Rivers in behind them.

Now, there's no way anyone's going to be able to convince me that Brady's not at #1, but I'm always willing to be hear arguments about the slotting of #2-5. I find Roethlisberger very difficult to pin down, so I'm frequently re-checking and adjusting my 'top' list.

You can't be convinced otherwise because Brady is #1. That's not homerism that is fact based on the most salient formula. Put another way, if one is best because of raw stats then we can just have them repeatedly throw the football between the tire and the guy who does it most frequently is #1. Another analogy: at the world series of Poker is the best poker player the guy who owns the statistic for most hands won or the guy sitting in the winner's chair at the end of the tournament?
The auspice of winning cannot be removed from the formula because winning absolutely has a direct affect on what a QB does/does not do. Maybe call it the category of 'effectiveness of stats'.

Given that context, the only formula that matters for determining #1 is stats (contribution) PLUS wins/playoff wins/SB wins (effectiveness of stats). Based on that Brady is the #1 and I don't see a good argument to the contrary based on Brady's both sides of the equation.

pherein · Sep 12, 2015

Deus Irae said:
True, but a little misleading, IMO. Since the Ravens victory following the 2000 season, here are the QBs who've won the SB.

Brady (4)
Brad Johnson
Roethlisberger (2)
P. Manning
E. Manning (2)
Brees
Rodgers
Flacco
Wilson

No team has won the SB without having at least one of the following:

Elite quarterback

Quarterback on one hell of a run (i.e. Flacco with his 117.2 rating, 11 TDs, 0 Ints)

Truly elite (as in 'one of the best of the decade/history') defense

Football and the QB has become sort of like hockey and the goalie. You can win without it, but it's a much tougher route to take.

Id say out of those. These are the guys who got the best teams from start of their career, might be off.
Wilson
Rodgers
Brady
Roethlisberger
P. Manning
E. Manning
Flacco
Brees

I am winging this

Its a is B.Sanders better than E.Smith thing. E.Smith had the #1-5 OL for years and beats Sanders numbers, but he could have fallen for 5 yrds before hit, and Sanders ran with one of the worst OL's in the NFL. Sanders is clearly better. As I see it. Its a complicated thing to figure out.

TheBostonStraggler · Sep 12, 2015

primetime said:
The quarterback is important but hardly capable of winning a game, let alone a Super Bowl, on his own. Patriots fans should recognize this, since the defense snatched defeat from the hands of victory for Brady twice (and victory from the hands of defeat at least once).

Agreed. I was not implying a QB lives in a win or lose bubble. However, if we are to consider other environmental factors for QB then how about quality of OL, quality of WRs, quality of TEs, quality of running game, quality of STs to provide field position, quality of defense to provide field position, quality of play calling, quality of scouting to provide preparation information, how about A/V guys to provide highest quality most detailed video for game film watching??
How to determine #1 starts to become more complicated then Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

A QB is not the sole determination of victory but he has a significant effect on victory. More than any other single player on the field he has the biggest effect on a win or loss.
A QB plays within the context of he needs to do X for the team to succeed. While he can't be absolutely certain of X at many points of the game, he has a sense of when X+1 is needed or simply X or X-1 or whatever. As long as all QBs in the argument of #1 have a large sample (many many instances of when he needed to do X or X+1 etc etc etc), how he provides what is needed within that context is often crucial for the win is it not?. So I don't see how you decouple playoff success from the formula of #1.

With that said, my "yardstick of yardsticks" comment was regarding Brady's lack of desire to be labeled #1 by the media mopes. I commented he doesn't care as long as getting the 5th and 6th ring is what matters.

Deus Irae · Sep 12, 2015

pherein said:
Id say out of those. These are the guys who got the best teams from start of their career, might be off.
Wilson
Rodgers
Brady
Roethlisberger
P. Manning
E. Manning
Flacco
Brees

I am winging this

Its a is B.Sanders better than E.Smith thing. E.Smith had the #1-5 OL for years and beats Sanders numbers, and Sanders ran with one of the worst OL's in the NFL. Sanders is clearly better. As I see it. Its a complicated thing to figure out.

I think you're overselling Brees' starting point.

Brees took over a team that was trending up. After a 1-15 season, they went 5-11 his rookie year, under Flutie.
Brady took over a team in decline (11/10/9/8/5 wins).
Manning took over a team hitting bottom (9 wins down to 3 wins).
Eli took over a team that had gone 10/4/6 in the win column.

Etc......

I could make a solid case that Brees was better positioned than all the above 4.

pherein · Sep 12, 2015

Deus Irae said:
I think you're overselling Brees' starting point.

Brees took over a team that was trending up. After a 1-15 season, they went 5-11 his rookie year, under Flutie.
Brady took over a team in decline (11/10/9/8/5 wins).
Manning took over a team hitting bottom (9 wins down to 3 wins).
Eli took over a team that had gone 10/4/6 in the win column.

Etc......

I could make a solid case that Brees was better positioned than all the above 4.

Yeah its difficult to figure out. Not selling anything, I just dont agree with guys that put PM above Brees. Brees beat PM in a SB, and beats his stats, and was in a worst situation to do that. I think you might be under selling.
Do you think PM would have beat the 2006 Saints in a Dome with Brees instead of the Bears ?
PM might not have had a SB win if that happend.
3-13 and 43 years of suck is trending up ?
I think you might be fudging the numbers. No way you can make the case, challenge you on that.

Joker · Sep 12, 2015

don't really give a shyt...I'm a Brady fan...always will be...always been a Pats fan...and I still think Grogan would shyt all over the so-called "tough guy" QB's touted by the idiotic NFLN every weekend.

and you know what? it feels DAMN GOOD to be a homer....

Deus Irae · Sep 12, 2015

pherein said:
Yeah its difficult to figure out. Not selling anything, I just dont agree with guys that put PM above Brees. Brees beat PM in a SB, and beats his stats, and was in a worst situation to do that. I think you might be under selling.
Do you think PM would have beat the 2006 Saints in a Dome with Brees instead of the Bears ?
3-13 and 43 years of suck is trending up ?
I think you might be fudging the numbers. No way you can make the case, challenge you on that.

I'm not fudging any numbers. I'm just not looking at when Brees went to the Saints as his debut, because that's an unfair comparison to the other QBs. Brees was drafted in 2001. The year before Brees took over the Chargers went 5-11. The previous season was the last season of the Ryan Leaf era and error. In 2001, Flutie started all 16 games and the team finished, as noted, at 5-11. That's when Brees took over as a starting QB. His first stint as an NFL QB was ok, but not exceptional.

When Brees went to the Saints, he took over a team that had won 10/7/9/8/8 games in the seasons before going 3-13 when McAllister was lost to an ACL injury and Brooks fell apart. The Saints had entered the Packers game at 2-2, lost McAllister, lost the game, and lost 11 of 12 after that. So the situation Brees was heading into in New Orleans was not nearly as bad as the team's 2005 record indicated.

As for 2006 overall, the AFCCG was the Super Bowl. The Bears, who were clearly the best team in the NFC, and who absolutely destroyed the Saints, weren't going to be a match for either the Colts or Patriots.

The real question to come out of 2006 is this one:

"If the officials hadn't called a penalty that wasn't even a penalty in the NFL anymore (face guarding) against Hobbs, does Brady already have his 5th ring?

pherein · Sep 13, 2015

Deus Irae said:
I'm not fudging any numbers. I'm just not looking at when Brees went to the Saints as his debut, because that's an unfair comparison to the other QBs. Brees was drafted in 2001. The year before Brees took over the Chargers went 5-11. The previous season was the last season of the Ryan Leaf era and error. In 2001, Flutie started all 16 games and the team finished, as noted, at 5-11. That's when Brees took over as a starting QB. His first stint as an NFL QB was ok, but not exceptional.

When Brees went to the Saints, he took over a team that had won 10/7/9/8/8 games in the seasons before going 3-13 when McAllister was lost to an ACL injury and Brooks fell apart. The Saints had entered the Packers game at 2-2, lost McAllister, lost the game, and lost 11 of 12 after that. So the situation Brees was heading into in New Orleans was not nearly as bad as the team's 2005 record indicated.

As for 2006 overall, the AFCCG was the Super Bowl. The Bears, who were clearly the best team in the NFC, and who absolutely destroyed the Saints, weren't going to be a match for either the Colts or Patriots.

The real question to come out of 2006 is this one:

"If the officials hadn't called a penalty that wasn't even a penalty in the NFL anymore (face guarding) against Hobbs, does Brady already have his 5th ring?

Respect the opinion, but I have to come back to this, you have a few things wrong I think. Sorry playing
Guns of Icarus online with a few buds, nice discussion Dues thanks for your time. Really like talking to you thanks.

TruthSeeker · Sep 13, 2015

patsfan13 said:
At some point one has to consistently win in the playoffs.

Not if your name is Peyton.

1960Pats · Sep 13, 2015

Deus Irae said:
Tougher defenses doesn't explain the playoff win discrepancy. The kid's very good. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging it.

Of course Luck's good. Indy wouldn't have tanked a season if he wasn't.

The difference for Manning's playoff run is that he had to get through Brady almost every year. Luck has only had to do it for two so far. They both have had similar "success" against the GOAT.

1960Pats · Sep 13, 2015

bradybunch321 said:
Brady being #3 is dumb. If Rodgers is the best QB, Brady is 1A. I also still think Brady is the most poised and clutch QB today.

But to all you people bagging on Luck, just stop. The dude is good. He took a 2-14 to the playoffs his rookie year. He's had no running game or O-line to speak of. Yeah he makes stupid throws sometimes and has thrown a lot of interceptions, but when the team is single handedly relying on him, he has to be a gun slinger.

I'm not going to say Luck should be above Brady, but I would put him #3. And if I was drafting any player to start a franchise for the future, it would be him.

I swear, we could take the name Luck and substitute Manning and it would be identical to posts that I read ten years ago.

At some time Andrew Luck is going to have to not get his ass handed to him by the Pats to even be in the discussion of great QBs. He could at least beat Brady or Flacco once.

primetime · Sep 13, 2015

1960Pats said:
I swear, we could take the name Luck and substitute Manning and it would be identical to posts that I read ten years ago.

Except ten years ago, Manning had been in the league several years longer than Luck has now.

Hael · Sep 13, 2015

In terms of the best QB now, i'd probably take Rogers, then Brady, then Big Ben/Luck as they are interchangeable then Brees.

Rogers is ridiculous and in his prime (i'd take Brady in his prime all day though), but Luck will probably surpass Big Ben and Brady in the next few years as their career arcs go in the opposite direction. He is a special talent, and like Brady he does more with less. I mean he's putting up numbers that eclipse Manning at the same time by a long shot, and this with far less of a team.

Its somewhat unfair to lump his struggles against NE and put it all on him, I think it was very clear that NE was a much more talented squad and they were far better coached.

Brady6 · Sep 13, 2015

I think the choice of Rodgers and Luck has more to do with age, if you are asking NFL execs who to pick a QB to start a team with it makes sense for them to select a 31 year old Rodgers or 26 year old Luck over a 38 year old Brady.

I tend to disagree, but I can understand them going the direction of younger.

BTTA · Sep 13, 2015

Guys, how about we take all the energy put into arguing about this and redirect it to making big signs that say "Brady is #6" and handing them out at Pats games? The only important thing in all this is that it continue to piss Brady off, to the day he retires. Then we can say, "Eh, we were just ribbing you."

GaryfromTO · Sep 13, 2015

W.F.C.

we all know the truth.

The Best QB of all time is only the third best in the league.
Makes about as much sense as the Wells Report.

NFL executives rank Brady as third best QB behind Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

Pro Bowl Player

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

In the Starting Line-Up

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

On the Game Day Roster

Pro Bowl Player

He/Him

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

Similar threads