Stats to back that TB is the greatest QB

[Silver Blue&Red]

Come on, its all a matter of opinion. Free agency, draft picks, blah blah. And my opinion and yours is TB is the greatest ever. I totally agree in everyone's outlook on this. As long as it's mine. TB is the best. Overall, after all the comparisons, he's the GOAT.! !. I appreciate all other opinions. Even tho they're wrong.

 

[RobertWeathers]

a lot of people will discredit the stats of today's qb citing rules changes and an evolution of the league --- this is, of course, very valid.

I don't see much point in straight up stat comparisons spanning eras like that.

Agreed. Stats mean crap. Greatness is greatness. Its not a exercise in discrediting a player's accomplishments that I am interested in having. It's different rules and things like nutrition, schemes and training for each era that make the difference when comparing players over different eras. The reverse argument is that if you were to drop the 1985 Bears in 2015 NFL, Brady would hang 30+ on them 9 out 10 times. However, by me saying that is not meant to insult the Bears, it's a different kind of game now. With that said, if you gave that team and that talent the tools of the 2015 NFL, they'd be a pretty good defense. Thats why I hold back in saying Brady is better as I believe if Montana- with proper training, time and decent talent to surround him with would still be a HoF QB. It's a hypothetical and impossible to argue as they are both transcendent players.

today's era is more conducive to accumulating passing stats, but do you know what it's not conducive to?

building dynasties --- and that's the #1 argument anybody ever makes for montana, that he won 4 sb.

in the years prior to the cap we saw teams of the 70s like miami go to 3 sb in 3 years, minny appear in 3 sb over 4 yrs, and the great pittsburgh team win 4 in 6 yrs.

then in the 80s and 90s you constantly see the same few teams playing in the big game, like washington, dallas, those niners, and even buffalo making 4 consecutive trips.

that #### just doesn't happen in today's league --- since they instituted the cap to bust up these oligarchies, which teams, outside brady's patriots, could really be considered a dynasty like montana's niners?

comparison of eras is not nearly as favorable to the qb of yesteryear as you'd like to think

Good points. I go back and forth on this issue. I agree that the cap, FA and the changes in rookie contract lengths make it easier for player movement and harder to keep talent. However, it also makes it MUCH easier for a 2-14 team to (if they are smart) become a 9-7 team overnight. I'd suggest going back and examining those 49er and "Skins rosters. You'll find a ton of key players on those SB teams were acquired via trade and FA. Is it harder to keep talent now-yes. Is it easier to acquire talent now- absolutely.

 

[Deus Irae]

Good points. I go back and forth on this issue. I agree that the cap, FA and the changes in rookie contract lengths make it easier for player movement and harder to keep talent. However, it also makes it MUCH easier for a 2-14 team to (if they are smart) become a 9-7 team overnight. I'd suggest going back and examining those 49er and "Skins rosters. You'll find a ton of key players on those SB teams were acquired via trade and FA. Is it harder to keep talent now-yes. Is it easier to acquire talent now- absolutely.

Even in today's game, the best QBs are generally on the better teams, or at least aren't on lousy teams.

New Orleans has never won fewer than 7 games with Brees
Manning has won fewer than 10 games in a season only twice, once being his rookie season
Brady's won fewer than 10 games in a season only once
Roethlisberger's worst season was 7-8
Rodgers has only 1 full season with fewer than 10 wins
Rivers has been sub .500 only once in his career.

Those are probably the best 6 QBs of the recent era, and their teams don't end up at the bottom of the barrel because of it.*


I think, not coincidentally, that Brady, Manning and Rodgers really stand out even from the other 3 QBs with the 10+ win seasons in an era where the QB is more emphasized than ever.

 

[libra957]

I think that Brady is better than montana because with him as a starter the patriots have never gone 3 years without going to the Superbowl. Montana reign lasted 9 years, Brady reign is 15 years strong and growing. Being perfect in 4 Super Bowl is nice but overall Montana was not as dominant as Brady.

 

[josh24]

Need to go deeper in the stats...

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/posts/4116453/

 

[RobertWeathers]

Even in today's game, the best QBs are generally on the better teams, or at least aren't on lousy teams.

New Orleans has never won fewer than 7 games with Brees
Manning has won fewer than 10 games in a season only twice, once being his rookie season
Brady's won fewer than 10 games in a season only once
Roethlisberger's worst season was 7-8
Rodgers has only 1 full season with fewer than 10 wins
Rivers has been sub .500 only once in his career.

Those are probably the best 6 QBs of the recent era, and their teams don't end up at the bottom of the barrel because of it.*


I think, not coincidentally, that Brady, Manning and Rodgers really stand out even from the other 3 QBs with the 10+ win seasons in an era where the QB is more emphasized than ever.

Yep.

I'd submit that it was a QB's league just as much as it was in the 60s as it is now. You need good QB pay to win consistently

In that same vein, you don't need a great QB to win a SB. Just need a good team to play well, have your Qb make plays, not screw it up and catch lightening in a bottle to win it all.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think that Brady is better than montana because with him as a starter the patriots have never gone 3 years without going to the Superbowl. Montana reign lasted 9 years, Brady reign is 15 years strong and growing. Being perfect in 4 Super Bowl is nice but overall Montana was not as dominant as Brady.

Curse you people for making me defend Montana in this:

Montana had to face teams like the '85 Bears and '86 Giants, and he was stuck going into the playoffs in the vastly superior (at the time) NFC.

Brady was in the better conference for a while, but the Chargers, Colts and Steelers of the 00's were not as good as many of the teams of the 80's that Montana was up against. Hell, Gibbs was putting teams on the field that were so good they went to 4 SBs in 10 years and won with three different QBs (Williams/Rypien/Schroeder).

 

[rexxar]

You may want to revise your opinion after you read this. Brady is better in the reg season as well.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.co...w-tom-brady-better-than-peyton-manning/31873/

"2002 postseason – Manning and the Colts come up lame in one of the most dismal offensive performances in modern playoff history. He completes 45.2% of his passes for 137 yards, 4.4 YPA, 0 TD, 2 INT and a 31.2 rating. The Colts are embarrassed by the 9-7 Jets, 41-0. One and done in the playoffs."

LOL

 

[JMC00]

he is the only QB who has won in the playoffs when needing to throw 50+ times

There has been 35 instances where a player has thrown 50+ times in the playoffs. Only 7 times has a QB won the game throwing 50+, Brady has 4 of those wins.

 

[JMC00]

How driven do you think Brady is gonna be this year to get #5 and do it at SB 50 in the place (Ya, Ya I know 49ers play in a different stadium now but still) where he grew up a fan watching Montana win 4 SB? If there is a football deity he's getting Brady to that game, right? I mean Brady was in the stadium for "The Catch".

 

[libra957]

Curse you people for making me defend Montana in this:

Montana had to face teams like the '85 Bears and '86 Giants, and he was stuck going into the playoffs in the vastly superior (at the time) NFC.

Brady was in the better conference for a while, but the Chargers, Colts and Steelers of the 00's were not as good as many of the teams of the 80's that Montana was up against. Hell, Gibbs was putting teams on the field that were so good they went to 4 SBs in 10 years and won with three different QBs (Williams/Rypien/Schroeder).

Those 80s team were good but those 2000 teams have an extremely poor record against new england, it remain so even today. Montana dominated one decade, Brady is currently dominating 2.

 

[Deus Irae]

Those 80s team were good but those 2000 teams have an extremely poor record against new england, it remain so even today. Montana dominated one decade, Brady is currently dominating 2.

That's a longevity argument, not a difficulty of opponent argument. It's not really responsive to what I'd posted and you quoted.