Brady is the GOAT. This IndyStar thread proves it

[BradyFTW!]

This logic is odd.

Apparently Brady would be a better QB if the Pats hadn't made the SB in 2007, and instead they had lost in the divisional round...

 

[BradyManny]

Apparently Brady would be a better QB if the Pats hadn't made the SB in 2007, and instead they had lost in the divisional round...

That's not at all what I am saying or intended to say.

As I said in an above post, Brady would've been SB MVP if it weren't for the Tyree catch and ensuing Plaxico TD.

I'm simply saying that if Brady gets ring #4, having been to a 5th Super Bowl and having lost is not a credit to him vs. Montana's perfect 4-0 record in the SB. It's basically a wash. Yes, Brady gets credit for getting there when Montana didn't get there a 5th time, but I don't think that's enough to make a difference in eithers legacy.

Legacies are made by cursory looks at things like statistics, rings, headlines, key plays, etc.. No one outside NE will remember Brady's insanely clutch drive to take a 14-10 lead in SB42. Again, 4-0 in the SB vs. 4-1 in the SB is a complete wash, and that's if and when Brady gets a 4th ring.

16-0 may put Brady over the edge, though.

 

[emoney_33]

They need a good D to be successful?

Nice, wasn't what I was thinking but it works

 

[emoney_33]

That's not at all what I am saying or intended to say.

As I said in an above post, Brady would've been SB MVP if it weren't for the Tyree catch and ensuing Plaxico TD.

I'm simply saying that if Brady gets ring #4, having been to a 5th Super Bowl and having lost is not a credit to him vs. Montana's perfect 4-0 record in the SB. It's basically a wash. Yes, Brady gets credit for getting there when Montana didn't get there a 5th time, but I don't think that's enough to make a difference in eithers legacy.

16-0 may be.

I'm not going to get into all of the flaws with this line of thinking, but do you really believe the legacy of a QB is defined or should be defined simply by their record in superbowl games?

 

[BradyManny]

I'm not going to get into all of the flaws with this line of thinking, but do you really believe the legacy of a QB is defined or should be defined simply by their record in superbowl games?

I don't make the rules of how legacies are written, but I am aware of them. Rings is a huge part of it. Getting to a SB has never been a big boost to one's legacy, just as Manning didn't do much to increase his legacy this year, particularly with the way things went down yesterday. When people look back at Manning's 2009 season, they'll remember the choke he offered up yesterday.

Fortunately for us and for Brady's legacy, when people look back at the 2007 season, they'll remember 16-0 and the Tyree hail-mary.

Again, we're talking about legacies and how a guy is perceived 20 years after he's done. It's based on very general things.

 

[emoney_33]

I don't make the rules of how legacies are written, but I am aware of them. Rings is a huge part of it. Getting to a SB has never been a big boost to one's legacy, just as Manning didn't do much to increase his legacy this year, particularly with the way things went down yesterday. When people look back at Manning's 2009 season, they'll remember the choke he offered up yesterday.

Fortunately for us and for Brady's legacy, when people look back at the 2007 season, they'll remember 16-0 and the Tyree hail-mary.

Again, we're talking about legacies and how a guy is perceived 20 years after he's done. It's based on very general things.

The feeble mind of the masses. Then again, Montana isn't universally looked as the best. There are plenty of people who will argue against that. So there is no universal legacy formula. The top 5 or 10 may be universally agreed upon, but #1 is rarely universally agreed upon.

 

[BradyManny]

The feeble mind of the masses. Then again, Montana isn't universally looked as the best. There are plenty of people who will argue against that. So there is no universal legacy formula. The top 5 or 10 may be universally agreed upon, but #1 is rarely universally agreed upon.

I agree, I think the whole "who is the GOAT" thing is largely silly to some extent. Comparing different eras, different teams, when there are so many variables. It doesn't make sense.

But: If Brady gets 1-2 more rings, and retains the TD record, with 16-0 as another achievement, and continues to have the stats he has been having since adding Moss, I think he could get to that level where he is considered the guy when people think of the best QB to play the game.

He'd have it all - the rings, the stats, the clutchness - he'd have that checkmark in all the little categories people make up when trying to judge these things.

Again, it's all about perception - it's a flawed system to begin with, when you're trying to come to some consensus with many flawed perceptions.

My perception, Brady is the best I've ever seen, stats, rings, whatever - it's all irrelevant. The things I've seen him do and the way he makes players around him better is unmatched. And that's never going to show up in one of these GOAT arguments on NFL network 10 years from now.

 

[emoney_33]

I agree, I think the whole "who is the GOAT" thing is largely silly to some extent. Comparing different eras, different teams, when there are so many variables. It doesn't make sense.

But: If Brady gets 1-2 more rings, and retains the TD record, with 16-0 as another achievement, and continues to have the stats he has been having since adding Moss, I think he could get to that level where he is considered the guy when people think of the best QB to play the game.

He'd have it all - the rings, the stats, the clutchness - he'd have that checkmark in all the little categories people make up when trying to judge these things.

Again, it's all about perception - it's a flawed system to begin with, when you're trying to come to some consensus with many flawed perceptions.

My perception, Brady is the best I've ever seen, stats, rings, whatever - it's all irrelevant. The things I've seen him do and the way he makes players around him better is unmatched. And that's never going to show up in one of these GOAT arguments on NFL network 10 years from now.

Completely agree. We are pretty damn lucky to get to witness and root for such greatness on our favorite team

 

[BadMoFo]

The guy that CAN be the greatest if he continues like he's started is Big Ben. 8-2 in the playoffs.

 

[chevss454]

The guy that CAN be the greatest if he continues like he's started is Big Ben. 8-2 in the playoffs.

Big Ugly Ben is a product of the Steelers' outstanding defense. Without that outstanding defense this year, what did Big Ugly Ben do?

I don't buy your sentiment at all.

 

[Fixit]

Explain.

4=4.

5>4.

I'm not sure where people are getting confused here. In order for Brady to separate himself from Montana completely, he'd have to get to 5. Would he not? If you asked me my opinion, I'd say he's better than Montana right now - but that doesn't matter, it's the national perception and the legacy created from it that counts.

You're saying that getting to five Superbowls and winning four is less of an accomplishment than going only four times but winning them all. I find that odd.

 

[ausbacker]

Brady & Montana simply destroy the rest of the field when it comes to the post-season.

 

[BradyManny]

You're saying that getting to five Superbowls and winning four is less of an accomplishment than going only four times but winning them all. I find that odd.

It's not less, but it's not more. It's immaterial when we're talking about how Brady will be viewed in 10, 20 years versus a guy like Montana. It really is, getting to the SB is not viewed as much of an achievement once that much time has passed. [Otherwise, Jim Kelly would be considered one of the top QBs of all time....]

Now, if we're talking Brady vs. Manning - right now, while we're in the midst of it and it's all fresh in our memories, sure, a 4th SB appearance and a 4th AFCC is something. But does anyone OTOH remember how many NFC championship games Montana played in or Marino played in? No.

 

[BradyManny]

The guy that CAN be the greatest if he continues like he's started is Big Ben. 8-2 in the playoffs.

Ben has a long ways to go. His first SB appearance was historically bad, and that is something people will remember, win or lose. At least until an SB winner gets a lower QB rating in a SB game...which will probably never happen in our lifetimes.

 

[captain stone]

The guy that CAN be the greatest if he continues like he's started is Big Ben. 8-2 in the playoffs.

Worthlessbooger turned in 2 of the worst performances by a winning QB in SB history.

By all rights, he should be 6-4, incl. 0-2 in the SB, at best.

And if he keeps taking this pounding, on & off the field, he'll never see 2 more SBs.

 

[emoney_33]

Ben has a long ways to go. His first SB appearance was historically bad, and that is something people will remember, win or lose. At least until an SB winner gets a lower QB rating in a SB game...which will probably never happen in our lifetimes.

OK can we just stop this discussion on what you believe people will think about and remember 20 years from now. Let's either discuss the merits of the QBs or not. This discussion about people's perceptions in 20 years is going a little too far.

 

[BradyManny]

OK can we just stop this discussion on what you believe people will think about and remember 20 years from now. Let's either discuss the merits of the QBs or not. This discussion about people's perceptions in 20 years is going a little too far.

Why? If people are comparing him to Montana, the last championship Montana won was 20 years ago. It's extremely relevant to this discussion. We have two choices a) either not have the borderline silly GOAT discussions or b) play within the rules of the borderline silly GOAT discussions.

 

[emoney_33]

Why? If people are comparing him to Montana, the last championship Montana won was 20 years ago. It's extremely relevant to this discussion. We have two choices a) either not have the borderline silly GOAT discussions or b) play within the rules of the borderline silly GOAT discussions.

There are no rules, people are fickle, trying to guess what the masses will believe in 20 years is a pointless discussion IMO. If this has to be discussed, I'd much rather see the QBs merits discussed, not what some future mass of people will presumably use in the discussion in 20 years.