The greatest quarterback ever?

[ausbacker]

Given his many accomplishments Brady needs 1 more Lombardi to supplant Montana as the GOAT QB. Hopefully he'll win 2-3 more before he retires a Patriot (yes, I'm selfish).

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Works for me.

“He wants to keep playing,” said Aaron Shea, his tight end and close friend at Michigan, who now works as director of player engagement with the Browns. “When I had him out here for my son’s christening (Brady is the Godfather), I asked him, ‘So how many more years do you wanna go?’ He said, ‘I wanna play 20 years (in the NFL).’ That’s just him. That’s the way he thinks.”

Winning his first title at 24, Brady’s NFL reputation has forever been as a champion. And his 25 career fourth-quarter comebacks and 35 game-winning drives back that up. But all this wasn’t born in the pros. “He’s really cold-hearted,” says his dad, Tom Sr. “When he was in college, people lost it, but Brent Musberger called him the ‘comeback kid’. He did it time and again. It was his forte then. It is now. He’s very comfortable in that situation.”

“I talked to him earlier in the year about how long he wanted to play, and he said, ‘Dad, I never wanna work as hard as you work,’” Brady Sr. said. “He said, ‘I get to go to work in sweats, the Patriots feed me, I hang out with my friends, I get to exercise, and I play games. Why would I ever wanna do anything different?’ We’ve run into quarterbacks who say, ‘Geez, at 37, I knew I couldn’t do it anymore, that was it.’ But I’m telling you he feels the best he ever has.

“Frankly, I absolutely think he wants to play another 6 or 7 or 8 years, as he can perform or as long as Bill Belichick will have him. I don’t know that this story can be written yet, he may only be two-thirds of the way through his career.”

Dad's lips to the football god's ear.

Just read another article wondering just what Belichick thought when he brought him in. Did he know something or was it intuition or just dumb luck. The fact that he wasn't highly touted and didn't have a support base among the coaching staff and alumni gave Belichick pause. But he went back to the film and what he came away convinced of was he just wins. Regardless. Put in untenable positions time after time. He just won. And that was what resonated with and intrigued Belichick.

 

[bagwell368]

Post merger the only two guys to talk about are Montana and Brady.

Pre merger it's probably: Otto Graham, although some prefer Bart Starr, Baugh, or Unitas.

I'd say TB needs 2 seasons on line with his last 4 full season average and a SB title to clearly get ahead of Montana.

Just apply the cold weather adjustments to Brady and he'll gallop by Montana if he finishes as I suggest.

 

[jcdavey]

montana.......

 

[Deus Irae]

montana.......

Great state
Second best QB of the modern era

 

[BananaRepublican]

Trent Dilfer got to a Super Bowl.

I can't lose the notion that it is a team accomplishment, not a QB accomplishment. There is no stat for QB SB Wins. And so I question the validity of bean counting AFCCG or SB appearances or wins.

If the discussion is about the best playoff QB record then I see this all being relevant. If the discussion is who was the best QB then that means to me who was the most accurate, the smartest, the best with little talent, the best mechanics, etc. To me the craft that the QB works on is the stuff that he should be rated on, not his SB wins.

I do think clutch performances by a QB should be part of the package we would call his craft. But those performances are impacted by other players on the team so I'm not too keen on weighting them heavily.

To me a QB's skillset can be observed and rated, possibly accurately. His apportioned impact in a SB win cannot be so easily. A great receiver could actually be more than 50% of his success, depending.

So to eliminate all that I think the discussion should go back to who reads defenses better, who adjusts better, whose throwing mechanics are better, who can throw which throws better, who can scramble better or buy time in the pocket better, etc.

My own favorite in that dog fight would be Dan Marino. I am no QB or QB coach but I have heard many comments about his mechanics and they were impeccable. I think Manning's and Brady's are right up there too, but I would think Marino has that prize if it's ever given out. I dunno, maybe Unitas too but I don't know much about him in that respect.

One thing Marino did that no other QB can match is that quick release. That was just deadly and he avoided a lot of hits and sacks with that. He also had a very tidy shuffle in the pocket. I like the way Brady moves up in the pocket, but I wouldn't say it's any better than Marino.

How about Steve Young? Rarely mentioned in these conversations but that guy was a deadly scrambler-rusher as well as being a very accurate and mechanically sound pocket passer. See, Brady will never kill anybody with his feet. Gladly.

Other guys that are never mentioned are the Warren Moon and Randal Cunningham crowd. If Cunningham was not ruined by another Ryan he could have been perhaps the most talented ever. I like including him because unlike Michael Vick (whom everybody rates better than Cunningham because of one or two years of running) he didn't break down like a piece of China.

How about Fran Tarkenton? See what I mean? The guy owned every record worth owning when he retired but he'll never get traction here because of the way he did it. He never won the SB either, but you know this is my very point Deus (if you're still with me here) - a SB loss is a team loss, not a QB loss. Same for wins. We shouldn't judge QBs by their SB records. For all we know Archie Manning was the best Manning of them all and he never won ****. When judging the man and the QB I don't like putting it all on a simple W-L record in post season.

 

[Deus Irae]

I can't lose the notion that it is a team accomplishment, not a QB accomplishment. There is no stat for QB SB Wins. And so I question the validity of bean counting AFCCG or SB appearances or wins.

If the discussion is about the best playoff QB record then I see this all being relevant. If the discussion is who was the best QB then that means to me who was the most accurate, the smartest, the best with little talent, the best mechanics, etc. To me the craft that the QB works on is the stuff that he should be rated on, not his SB wins.

I do think clutch performances by a QB should be part of the package we would call his craft. But those performances are impacted by other players on the team so I'm not too keen on weighting them heavily.

To me a QB's skillset can be observed and rated, possibly accurately. His apportioned impact in a SB win cannot be so easily. A great receiver could actually be more than 50% of his success, depending.

So to eliminate all that I think the discussion should go back to who reads defenses better, who adjusts better, whose throwing mechanics are better, who can throw which throws better, who can scramble better or buy time in the pocket better, etc.

My own favorite in that dog fight would be Dan Marino. I am no QB or QB coach but I have heard many comments about his mechanics and they were impeccable. I think Manning's and Brady's are right up there too, but I would think Marino has that prize if it's ever given out. I dunno, maybe Unitas too but I don't know much about him in that respect.

One thing Marino did that no other QB can match is that quick release. That was just deadly and he avoided a lot of hits and sacks with that. He also had a very tidy shuffle in the pocket. I like the way Brady moves up in the pocket, but I wouldn't say it's any better than Marino.

How about Steve Young? Rarely mentioned in these conversations but that guy was a deadly scrambler-rusher as well as being a very accurate and mechanically sound pocket passer. See, Brady will never kill anybody with his feet. Gladly.

Other guys that are never mentioned are the Warren Moon and Randal Cunningham crowd. If Cunningham was not ruined by another Ryan he could have been perhaps the most talented ever. I like including him because unlike Michael Vick (whom everybody rates better than Cunningham because of one or two years of running) he didn't break down like a piece of China.

How about Fran Tarkenton? See what I mean? The guy owned every record worth owning when he retired but he'll never get traction here because of the way he did it. He never won the SB either, but you know this is my very point Deus (if you're still with me here) - a SB loss is a team loss, not a QB loss. Same for wins. We shouldn't judge QBs by their SB records. For all we know Archie Manning was the best Manning of them all and he never won ****. When judging the man and the QB I don't like putting it all on a simple W-L record in post season.

I'm sorry, but your opening paragraph makes absolutely no sense at all in the context of this discussion. Given that, I'm just going to move on.

 

[patfanken]

GOAT - That is such an imponderable concept in the context of the game of football. How can you tell. There are some that just want it done by counting up how many Lombardi's you won. What does that even mean. No ONE person wins any football game, let alone a superbowl. Tom Brady didn't "win" those 3 superbowl, nor did he lose the last two. Those were the results of the combined efforts of the players, and coaches

You want to consider Brady among the best, fine. You want to call him the best, that's OK too. But PLEASE, I wish fans and the mediots would show some respect for the game we love and not try and judge a player's legacy by assigning personal wins playing the truest TEAM game invented. In no other team game does a single individual have LESS to do with a win or can control the outcome of. than football.

 

[Salva135]

He's somewhere in the top 5, but it really depends on what you "value." If it's all about the rings, it's Montana... if it's all about the MVPs then it's Peyton. Brady is somewhere in between.


It's pretty sad where Brady stands in the public conversation these days, though. He used to be thought of as a playoff hero. Now, he's a choker for setting the bar so high for himself that even making Super Bowls is expected, and losing them is a massive failure. I would think given the recency bias of Brady's playoff results, the honors and credit bestowed about Belichick while at the same time the burden of Spygate, a very small minority of non-Pats fans would consider Brady even in the conversation. And in terms of right now, Rodgers and Brees are far sexier QBs. But there's nothing he can do about it other than to win another one.

 

[BananaRepublican]

I'm sorry, but your opening paragraph makes absolutely no sense at all in the context of this discussion. Given that, I'm just going to move on.

I'll simplify: There is no such thing as determining best ever QB using team wins in SBs as the main criterion. It's a team sport, right? So it makes no sense to use a team stat to anoint a QB as being best. It makes more sense to use criteria such as mechanics, pocket presence, accuracy, stats, mental ability, etc.

 

[Gostkowski for 3]

3 dropped passes away from probably having 6 SB rings

Caldwell
Samuel INT
Welker

I point this out to people all the time...

 

[ivanvamp]

I point this out to people all the time...

It's true, but the Patriots also had their share of luck winning the first three. I mean, the tuck play, beating the Steelers in that AFCCG on two special teams TDs (one on a blocked FG return for a TD...how often does *that* happen?), Kasay kicking the ball out of bounds for Carolina, a lot of things went right for the Patriots in the early 2000's. They could have zero just as easily as they could have six.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I'll simplify: There is no such thing as determining best ever QB using team wins in SBs as the main criterion. It's a team sport, right? So it makes no sense to use a team stat to anoint a QB as being best. It makes more sense to use criteria such as mechanics, pocket presence, accuracy, stats, mental ability, etc.

Both criteria are in and of themselves insufficient. It's typical that in this format most of you failed to grasp what Breer provided, context in it's entirely to this point, and perspective born of both familiarity and distance, which eventually led to his conclusion. Instead you dismissed it as yet another throwaway in a long line of IMO polls. Brady epitomizes the unique embodiment that combines of all the traits that encompass the designation greatest QB ever. Wins or stats alone simply don't. Neither do intangibles. Or measurables. They require context and perspective, which is what Breer provided in probably his best written work to date.

It's not most talented, or winningest discussion. It's greatest overall ever. And that means taking the good years and teams and luck with the bad in assessing the QB's performance in relation to other contenders. Situational football is part of the equation, and that includes eras and overall competitive balance. And on that basis Brady already trumps them all with no end in sight. It becomes an exercise which, if it is to have real meaning, becomes the anthesis of the old adage that close only counts in horseshoes. It counts for a lot in assessing QB performance. Without him do they even sniff one, let alone 5 and within spitting distance of 6? Certainly they don't sniff the first or last appearance. He's accomplished more with less whether you measure his talent individually or his teams cumulatively.

Montana's the only other guy legitimately in the discussion, but he was consistently surrounded by better talent, which Young's career underscores. Could he have done as much with less? Who knows. Could Peyton or Dan have done more with more? Maybe. Could Brady have? Probably. Could other guys have accomplished as much with better coaching or better weapons or more durability or opportunities? Doesn't matter. It's all about playing the hand you're dealt. Because aside from that the discussion becomes too subjective.

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

Given any kind of choice, it's impossible for me to imagine wishing for a different QB since Tom arrived.

His attitude regarding hard work, mental & physical toughness, doing your job, doing the little things right, seeking out challenges - I find it inspirational. Despite the fame that athletes earn, few deserve to be role models; Tom is excluded from that group.

"I like to think I have a little more mental toughness than anything becoming a distraction that would affect the way that I play" -- Tom Brady

I find this type of statement 100% applicable in my own life, especially during challenging circumstances.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Albert Breer‏@AlbertBreer

Just flipped on Big Ten Network, and 2000 Orange Bowl is on, Brady's final game at UofM. Watch it, and you'll wonder how scouts missed on TB.


Wish I had it just for that. But I already know how scouts missed on TB. Perceptions and pre conceived notions about what succeeds at the next level.

 

[Creative Username]

Frankly, I'm quite glad that the scouts missed Brady...
He's the difference between the Patriots being the model team of the early 2000's and general irrelevancy.

 

[BSR]

I can't lose the notion that it is a team accomplishment, not a QB accomplishment. There is no stat for QB SB Wins. And so I question the validity of bean counting AFCCG or SB appearances or wins.

If the discussion is about the best playoff QB record then I see this all being relevant. If the discussion is who was the best QB then that means to me who was the most accurate, the smartest, the best with little talent, the best mechanics, etc. To me the craft that the QB works on is the stuff that he should be rated on, not his SB wins.

I do think clutch performances by a QB should be part of the package we would call his craft. But those performances are impacted by other players on the team so I'm not too keen on weighting them heavily.

To me a QB's skillset can be observed and rated, possibly accurately. His apportioned impact in a SB win cannot be so easily. A great receiver could actually be more than 50% of his success, depending.

So to eliminate all that I think the discussion should go back to who reads defenses better, who adjusts better, whose throwing mechanics are better, who can throw which throws better, who can scramble better or buy time in the pocket better, etc.

My own favorite in that dog fight would be Dan Marino. I am no QB or QB coach but I have heard many comments about his mechanics and they were impeccable. I think Manning's and Brady's are right up there too, but I would think Marino has that prize if it's ever given out. I dunno, maybe Unitas too but I don't know much about him in that respect.

One thing Marino did that no other QB can match is that quick release. That was just deadly and he avoided a lot of hits and sacks with that. He also had a very tidy shuffle in the pocket. I like the way Brady moves up in the pocket, but I wouldn't say it's any better than Marino.

How about Steve Young? Rarely mentioned in these conversations but that guy was a deadly scrambler-rusher as well as being a very accurate and mechanically sound pocket passer. See, Brady will never kill anybody with his feet. Gladly.

Other guys that are never mentioned are the Warren Moon and Randal Cunningham crowd. If Cunningham was not ruined by another Ryan he could have been perhaps the most talented ever. I like including him because unlike Michael Vick (whom everybody rates better than Cunningham because of one or two years of running) he didn't break down like a piece of China.

How about Fran Tarkenton? See what I mean? The guy owned every record worth owning when he retired but he'll never get traction here because of the way he did it. He never won the SB either, but you know this is my very point Deus (if you're still with me here) - a SB loss is a team loss, not a QB loss. Same for wins. We shouldn't judge QBs by their SB records. For all we know Archie Manning was the best Manning of them all and he never won ****. When judging the man and the QB I don't like putting it all on a simple W-L record in post season.

Throwing a football in and of itself is meaningless. There is no point to it in a vacuum. Its only meaning is in the context of a football game, where success is measured in the smaller sense of catches, first downs, and touchdowns and in the larger sense of winning games, divisions, and championships. I agree it is a herculean task to try to separate the performance from the individual from that of the team, but really that is all we are left with.

I think its pretty meaningless to try to measure someones greatness by evaluating the components of performance that didn't result in success. Its like trying to measure the greatness of a painter that never created a masterpiece but has great individual brush strokes. By that sense, I can't see how anyone could ever say that Marino, Tarkenton, Moon or Cunningham even approached the GOAT when they were never a part of greatness.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I'm sorry, but your opening paragraph makes absolutely no sense at all in the context of this discussion. Given that, I'm just going to move on.

Yep.

Sure as shootin', that gunslinger walked into Dodge City and pulled an illicit negative right out of his holster, pardner. No cowboy gets away with that when Sheriff Deus is on duty.

 

[Kid~Brady]

Albert Breer‏@AlbertBreer

Just flipped on Big Ten Network, and 2000 Orange Bowl is on, Brady's final game at UofM. Watch it, and you'll wonder how scouts missed on TB.


Wish I had it just for that. But I already know how scouts missed on TB. Perceptions and pre conceived notions about what succeeds at the next level.

Funny you mention this.

I was just listening to Dennis and Callahan and they shared a piece quoting Bill Belichick about Brady's first season I think. This very same day, when it was time to make the final roster cuts, they thought about putting Brady through waivers but something told BB to hold ontu him because he just had "that" feeling about his upside and potential.

Glad he had that feeling all those years ago. This franchise would not be what it is today.

 

[BananaRepublican]

I think its pretty meaningless to try to measure someones greatness by evaluating the components of performance that didn't result in success. Its like trying to measure the greatness of a painter that never created a masterpiece but has great individual brush strokes. By that sense, I can't see how anyone could ever say that Marino, Tarkenton, Moon or Cunningham even approached the GOAT when they were never a part of greatness.

Then clearly Brady's play has degraded in recent years because he no longer can win the big one. See, your own argument works two ways, and it's unfair but that's how you want it for some strange reason.

Bart Starr is 5-0 and nobody even mentions his name. I always wonder why. Ignorance? Five championship games and five wins and, oh, he's an after thought? No, according to your Single Criterion calculation Bart Starr is the champ of all the QBs, no questions asked.

And please don't feed the "3-2 is better than 4-0" argument.

I don't want to hear anybody say it was Brady's fault that they lost the last two SBs. That is too dummy-ish. Brady, just like Marino, showed up at a SB last year without a complete team. QBs do not win or lose SBs. We've abused the misnomer so long that we forget that it's a misnomer.