The greatest quarterback ever?

[Deus Irae]

Come on, Deus, You know that wasn't my point. My point was that fortune and the turns of the game play a big role in the outcomes and that arguing that he "could have" had six rings is ridiculous. I wasn't taking anything away from the Pats wins, just saying that it takes a whole holy heck of a lot of stuff to go right to win an SB.

But my point is that some of the arguments have validity, and some are just garbage. For example, saying "The Patriots win if Brady doesn't take the safety" is silly because of how early it happened in the game and the Patriots later taking the lead, but saying "The Patriots win if Welker makes that catch" is much more defensible, because it gives the team the ball, the first down, and the ability to kill the clock while already in field goal range. Tom Brady is about 3 plays away from being the only QB in NFL history with 5 Super Bowl victories and a likely 6th.

When Patriots fans look back on history, there are individual plays/calls which, if done to the team's/officials' usual level of success, would have likely resulted in 3 more Lombardis. I say that not to pimp the team, or to make excuses for losses, but just to note the truth of things.

 

[Hael]

It's not just superbowls rings that separates these guys, or for the matter that important. Brady is obviously a better passer in the years where they didn't win superbowls, relative to when he was younger and was. So clearly that counting is missing something.

It's also how effective they were at the qb position relative to the baseline of their era.

Joe retired with the highest qb rating of all time. That stat is inflated nowadays, but for the era he played in, it was clear that Joe was the best player who had ever played.

Brady's rating is high, but it was below Peyton's for a good part of their careers, and now is below Aaron rodgers. In some sense hes only really been the best pure qb for two years whereas Joe had nearly a decade, where only Marino was in the same conversation.

 

[Bassman]

Come on. Brady has led his team to two game winning scores as time expired in the SB, the one with clock at zero and the other with a tick or two left.

If you had just said, "It's a numbers game and Montana has four while Brady has three," I would have granted your position.

Be careful. A word of friendly advice. With less than ten posts, you are still at a point where people will be deciding whether to take you seriously or write you off as a Troll and engage Ian's trusty "Ignore" button. That comment from an established poster would be accepted as a "contrarian view;" from a newbie it raises red flags.

Like I said before until he leads the team to a game winning TD. In Montanas first SB all he needed was a FG to win, but he lead the team to a TD.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

When and if Brady ever leads his team down the field to score the game winning TD in a Super Bowl with less than a minute to go I'll consider him better than Starr or Montana.

Like I said before until he leads the team to a game winning TD. In Montanas first SB all he needed was a FG to win, but he lead the team to a TD.

He's won 2 Super Bowls in the last minute. What's the matter with you?

2001

1:21 1 10 NWE 17 Tom Brady pass complete to J.R. Redmond for 5 yards
0:57 2 5 NWE 22 Tom Brady pass complete to J.R. Redmond for 8 yards
0:41 1 10 NWE 30 Tom Brady pass incomplete
0:41 2 10 NWE 30 Tom Brady pass complete to J.R. Redmond for 11 yards
0:33 1 10 NWE 41 Tom Brady pass incomplete
0:29 2 10 NWE 41 Tom Brady pass complete to Troy Brown for 23 yards
0:21 1 10 RAM 36 Tom Brady pass complete to Jermaine Wiggins for 6 yards
0:07 2 4 RAM 30 Tom Brady pass incomplete
0:07 3 4 RAM 30 Adam Vinatieri 48 yard field goal good

Patriots 20 Rams 17

St. Louis Rams vs. New England Patriots - February 3rd, 2002 - Pro-Football-Reference.com

2003

1:08 1 10 NWE 40 Tom Brady pass incomplete
1:04 2 10 NWE 40 Tom Brady pass complete to Troy Brown for 13 yards
0:51 1 10 CAR 47 Tom Brady pass complete to Troy Brown for 20 yards.
Penalty on Troy Brown: Offensive Pass Interference, 10 yards (no play)
0:44 1 20 NWE 43 Tom Brady pass complete to Troy Brown for 13 yards
0:20 2 7 CAR 44 Tom Brady pass complete to Daniel Graham for 4 yards
0:14 3 3 CAR 40 Tom Brady pass complete to Deion Branch for 17 yards
0:09 1 10 CAR 23 Adam Vinatieri 41 yard field goal good

Patriots 32 Panthers 29

New England Patriots vs. Carolina Panthers - February 1st, 2004 - Pro-Football-Reference.com

 

[ivanvamp]

Bassman thinks that only game-winning TDs count. So for example, if Bradshaw had successfully stopped at the one-yard line in the last SB, and the Giants kicked a game-winning FG with no time left on the clock, that would have meant that it wouldn't have counted as a game-winning drive, I guess.

In SB 42, Brady *DID* lead the Pats to a last-minute, game-winning TD. They were down 10-7 and Brady led the Pats on a dynamic TD drive to give them a 14-10 lead with just 2:45 left in the game. On that drive, Brady went 8-11 for 71 yards and a TD under intense fire.

Then the D didn't hold up and Brady had almost no time at all to try it again. Same thing this past year. They had a lead and he only had 57 seconds left with no timeouts to engineer a drive.

 

[PatsWSB47]

Like I said before until he leads the team to a game winning TD. In Montanas first SB all he needed was a FG to win, but he lead the team to a TD.

Is determining the greatest quarterback confined to Superbowl performances only? And is a game winning TD drive the trump card? Who set that criteria? I don't think so. Montana played in the pre salary cap era where his team was comprised of many HOFers. Even then he had a worse payoff record than Brady has had up to this point.

 

[ivanvamp]

I think when you're discussing the greatest QB of all time, you have to consider *everything*. Regular season stats, post-season stats, Super Bowl stats, regular season record, post-season record, Super Bowl record, individual awards, team success, everything. Fortunately, Tom Brady stacks up well in all these areas.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Is determining the greatest quarterback confined to Superbowl performances only? And is a game winning TD drive the trump card? Who set that criteria? I don't think so. Montana played in the pre salary cap era where his team was comprised of many HOFers. Even then he had a worse payoff record than Brady has had up to this point.

He's clearly trolling, what should have the Pats done? Go for it when they only needed 3? Idiotic reasoning.

 

[Kid~Brady]

Like I said before until he leads the team to a game winning TD. In Montanas first SB all he needed was a FG to win, but he lead the team to a TD.

Why are you so stuck on this one stupid reason?

After everything he's accomplished, this is the one reason you don't put him there? Because he hasn't thrown a last second TD in the Superbowl?

 

[ivanvamp]

I think when you're discussing the greatest QB of all time, you have to consider *everything*. Regular season stats, post-season stats, Super Bowl stats, regular season record, post-season record, Super Bowl record, individual awards, team success, everything. Fortunately, Tom Brady stacks up well in all these areas.

To this point above, here's the cumulative case for Tom Brady.

Career Rank:
- Pass yds: 14 (39,979), will be in the top 10 after this year, will almost certainly be in the top 3-5 by the time he's done.
- TD: 5 (300), will almost certainly be in the top 3 by the time he's done.
- comp%: 9 (63.8%), will probably stay around this number.
- game-winning drives: 6 (35), will almost certainly be in the top 3 by the time he's done.
- 4th quarter comebacks: 10 (25), will almost certainly be in the top 4 by the time he's done.
- INT%: 3 (2.2%), will almost certainly stay in the top 3.
- pass yds per game: 6 (248.3), will probably be in the top 5 by the time he's done.
- passer rating: 4 (96.4), will probably be in the top 3 by the time he's done.


Individual Records and Achievements:
- TD: 1st (50, in 2007), 9th (39, 2011), 13th (36, 2010)
- Yds: 2nd (5,235, 2011), 8th (4,806, 2007)
- INT%: 2nd (0.8%, 2010)
- passer rating: 3rd (117.2, 2007), 6th (111.0, 2010), 18th (105.6, 2011)
- comp%: 9th (68.9%, 2007)
- net adjusted yds per attempt: 4th (8.88, 2007), 12th (8.25, 2010 and 2011)
- game-winning drives: 3rd (7, 2003)
- Pro Bowls: 7
- All-Pro: 2
- League MVP: 2

So right there, in these first two categories, we have the makings of an all-time great, a legend, one of the greatest QBs ever to play the game, just on the pure numbers. His individual accomplishments during the regular season are unbelievable.

But what about his post-season performance? It's not as good, but that's to be expected; after all, he's playing against much better defenses under the utmost pressure in every game. Here's what we see:

Total Postseason Stats:
22 g, 62.9%, 5,285 yds, 38 td, 20 int, 87.8 rating

Total Super Bowl Stats:
5 g, 64.5%, 1,277 yds, 9 td, 2 int, 93.8 rating

Those Super Bowl stats are absolutely terrific. A 93.8 rating is excellent. So he's been very, very good in the post-sesason and especially in the Super Bowl.

But what about the team performance? Has he simply been about big numbers? Here's the team's performance under Brady:

Regular Season: 124-35 (.780)
Division Titles: 9 (out of 10 seasons)
AFC Championships: 5 (out of 10 seasons)
Super Bowl Championships: 3 (out of 5 tries, out of 10 seasons)

These team records stack up well to others in the "GOAT" conversation. I'll limit the discussion to Montana, Bradshaw, Manning, and Elway (leaving out Unitas, Starr, Tittle, Graham, etc.). Here are their team records:

Brady
Regular Season: 124-35 (.780)
Conf. Championships: 5 (out of 10 seasons) 5-1 record
SB/NFL titles: 3 (out of 5 tries, out of 10 seasons) 3-2 record

Montana
Regular Season: 117-46 (.718)
Conf. Championships: 4 (out of 13 seasons) 4-3 record
SB/NFL titles: 4 (out of 4 tries, out of 13 seasons) 4-0 record

Bradshaw
Regular Season: 107-51 (.677)
Conf. Championships: 4 (out of 13 seasons) 4-2 record
SB/NFL titles: 4 (out of 4 tries, out of 13 seasons) 4-0 record

Manning
Regular Season: 141-67 (.678)
Conf. Championships: 2 (out of 13 seasons) 2-1 record
SB/NFL titles: 1 (out of 2 tries, out of 13 seasons) 2-1 record

Elway
Regular Season: 148-82 (.643)
Conf. Championships: 5 (out of 16 seasons) 5-1 record
SB/NFL titles: 2 (out of 5 tries, out of 16 seasons) 2-3 record

Again, Brady stacks up favorably against the very best the league has ever seen.

All told, certainly a case can be made for other guys like Montana and Elway, but a really, really good case can also be made for Tom Brady.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

But my point is that some of the arguments have validity, and some are just garbage. For example, saying "The Patriots win if Brady doesn't take the safety" is silly because of how early it happened in the game and the Patriots later taking the lead, but saying "The Patriots win if Welker makes that catch" is much more defensible, because it gives the team the ball, the first down, and the ability to kill the clock while already in field goal range. Tom Brady is about 3 plays away from being the only QB in NFL history with 5 Super Bowl victories and a likely 6th.

When Patriots fans look back on history, there are individual plays/calls which, if done to the team's/officials' usual level of success, would have likely resulted in 3 more Lombardis. I say that not to pimp the team, or to make excuses for losses, but just to note the truth of things.

One person's "truth of things" can be another's "judgment call."

In the game in question, there was an indisputable connection between the safety and two Giants points, a strong connection between the safety and nine points and an indirect but admittedly debatable connection between the safety and the patriots momentum in the first quarter. Does the fact that the Pats scored 10 points in the second quarter and took the lead really obviate the significance of one or more of those? I don't think so.

I happen to agree with you on the Welker catch, but a lot of others don't.

How can you argue that one disputably significant event (the safety and related occurrences) is less significant than another disputably significant event (Welker's drop)?

In ascribing significance or greater significance to one or the other, judgment is being exercised in an area of dispute.

Are you saying that proximity to the end of the game is the ultimate criterion for relevance when it comes to deciding if an event determined or helped determine the outcome of a game? That's a clear proposition that would be defensible, but also one with which I would disagree on the simple grounds that the game is 60 minutes long. Was Billy Cundiff alone responsible for the outcome of the AFCCG? You can't get any closer to the end of the game than a walkoff miss. Or do we look to Lee Evans or to Flacco's pick or to Ray Rice's sub par day or to.......

Or are you arguing that "We know it when we see it" and, in this case, we "know" that Welker's drop meant the Pats couldn't run out the clock and gave the Giants a chance to win the game. The problem with that argument, of course, is that some folks actually don't think that Welker droppped the ball, but that it was misthrown. So, by that logic, it's all in the eye of the beholder, in which case, the connection to the "truth of things" becomes even more tenuous and we really are all just spinning our wheels out here.




Finally, in the context of the broader discussion; i.e., can one look at the Pats history over the last 12 years and argue that three Lombardis could just as well have been zero as six?

Sure, you can. But, to be honest, I'm not sure what the point of either argument really is.

A Championship that is based on winning three or four "win or die" games will ultimately allow for dozens of potential scenarios (sometimes even a Trent Dilfer's number comes up when those scenarios play themselves out).

I think we simply have to accept that such a Championship format brings randomness into play to a much higher degree than a "Best of..." playoff format ever will.

It seems to me that we either write the randomness out and say "It is what it is." The team that won, won and it was because of 60 minutes of play. Or we acknowledge the randomness and end up with debates like this as we wait for a season to begin.

The best description of this was offered by G.K. Chesterton, IMO: "The real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite. Life is not an illogicality; yet it is a trap for logicians. It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden; its wildness lies in wait."

Nowhere does "wildness...[lie]...in wait" more significantly than in an NFL Playoff game or the Super Bowl. We're just trying to put a name on it.

 

[Deus Irae]

One person's "truth of things" can be another's "judgment call."

In the game in question, there was an indisputable connection between the safety and two Giants points, a strong connection between the safety and nine points and an indirect but admittedly debatable connection between the safety and the patriots momentum in the first quarter. Does the fact that the Pats scored 10 points in the second quarter and took the lead really obviate the significance of one or more of those? I don't think so.

I happen to agree with you on the Welker catch, but a lot of others don't.

How can you argue that one disputably significant event (the safety and related occurrences) is less significant than another disputably significant event (Welker's drop)?

Because the safety was overtaken by events and the Patriots were able to get the lead in the game.

...Are you saying that proximity to the end of the game is the ultimate criterion for relevance when it comes to deciding if an event determined or helped determine the outcome of a game? That's a clear proposition that would be defensible, but also one with which I would disagree on the simple grounds that the game is 60 minutes long. Was Billy Cundiff alone responsible for the outcome of the AFCCG? You can't get any closer to the end of the game than a walkoff miss. Or do we look to Lee Evans or to Flacco's pick or to Ray Rice's sub par day or to.......

Or are you arguing that "We know it when we see it" and, in this case, we "know" that Welker's drop meant the Pats couldn't run out the clock and gave the Giants a chance to win the game. The problem with that argument, of course, is that some folks actually don't think that Welker droppped the ball, but that it was misthrown. So, by that logic, it's all in the eye of the beholder, in which case, the connection to the "truth of things" becomes even more tenuous and we really are all just spinning our wheels out here.

I'm saying that when you're talking about single plays winning/losing games, they are much more likely to happen at the end of the game. In the case of the safety, it was overcome early on, and the Patriots were leading at halftime.

Finally, in the context of the broader discussion; i.e., can one look at the Pats history over the last 12 years and argue that three Lombardis could just as well have been zero as six?

Not honestly, no.

 

[ivanvamp]

Finally, in the context of the broader discussion; i.e., can one look at the Pats history over the last 12 years and argue that three Lombardis could just as well have been zero as six?

Not 0 to 6. More like a range of 1 to 5. Two plays from being 5-0 (Tyree, Welker). But got quite a bit of luck in 2001 (Tuck Rule, two ST TDs against Pittsburgh in the AFCCG) and even in 2003 (Kasay kicks the ball out of bounds setting up NE's game-winning FG).

2006 is a unique case. I believe they would have beaten the Bears but they didn't even get to the Super Bowl that year. They *SHOULD* have gotten there, having a 21-3 lead against Indy in the AFCCG. But oh well. OTOH, their 2004 run was just pretty solid all the way through, even in the Super Bowl. No real luck needed during that run.

 

[stcjones]

I just hope the Pats D knocks "Luck" on his a## repeatedly when they play Indy!!!! GO PATS!!!!!

You have pointed out a most important angle to this. Luck has a lot to do with a lot of things. And I don't diss on luck either. Brady got lucky, Eli got lucky, even Bart Starr got lucky when that Dallas DT couldn't get traction on that QB sneak. Luck has to happen to somebody.

The question is how to get on the right side of luck? See, Dan Marino never did and that becomes a big problem for a lot of people who are as skilled as possible.

 

[stcjones]

I think all the sane analysts would agree that the game back then was "easier" thank today's game (But this is probably a topic for another day) Who would have thought you would have DL running 40 speeds of WR, yet be 10x bigger than yesteryears superstars?? Not taking anything away from the guys who played with leather helmets and at a time when the endzone uprights were in the middle of the endzone......but today's Pro Football is a he(( of alot harder, faster, more cerebral, game than they used to play back then. I find what Brady, P. Manning, Brees, etc have been able to accomplish in this era to be mind boggling given the constant revolving door of personnel and the complexity of the offenses......

From an outside view: I think this is going to be an interesting debate when Brady's career is finished. One advantage the older QBs will always have, whether rightly or wrongly, is that they played a different game due to the rules in place at the time. Older writers, fans, etc... are always going to give the nod to a Montana, Unitas, or even Elway because of the game they played.

I think one of the things that hurts Brady is that he doesnt have a defining moment. There is no Montana to Taylor or Montana to Clark in a championship game. There are drives to set up a field goal but the big plays that everyone remembers (outside of the NE area) from the early runs are kicks and the tuck rule. Id say Bradys Carolina game is better than both of Eli Mannings Super Bowl wins, but the great escape, TD to Burress and sideline pass to Manningham are all more vivid memories than the pass to Deion Branch to set up a kick. Not that anyone is going to say Eli is anywhere close to Brady but its those moments that often put someone over the top. In Elis case its going to get him in the Hall but if Brady had one or two of those it would get him the GOAT.

The other thing, and I guess it will depend on how history remembers it, is that Brady was not a dominant player on those first two Super Bowls. He had great games in the Super Bowl and he certainly wasnt just along for the ride like Brad Johnson, but the reason that whole Manning vs Brady debate was real was because one guy had fantastic stats and the other just won. Brady was going to be Terry Bradshaw who has never been in the conversation despite 4 titles.

Bradys game I felt really changed in 2004 and that ended up being the best team of the decade. I though that was the season this really became his team. Statistically right up there with anybody from that point forward. After 2004 though he stopped winning championships. For a period I thought he became Manning with the gaudy stats followed by first and second round exits. I think he is definitely right there in the conversation and I think Id probably take him over Montana since I think Montana benefited from a system moreso than Brady, but I think he needs at least 1 more title in his "stat" seasons to be where most people start to put him at the top.

 

[stcjones]

On further thought Brady probably SHOULD be the greatest QB of all time considering he did some of his greatest work WITHOUT any Superstars around him. Peyton was always loaded at WR and had above average RB's and a good OL........Brees has had probably more SUPER weapons than anybody.....same with Rodgers.......Brady had guys who excelled in BB's system for sure.....but rarely any (Moss excluded) that would qualify as "Superstars".......

 

[coolguy]

If this was montana's era ty law, branch, and seymour would have been patriots for life with no real consequences..

5 SUPERBOWL appearances is still an incredible feat.

 

[coolguy]

On further thought Brady probably SHOULD be the greatest QB of all time considering he did some of his greatest work WITHOUT any Superstars around him. Peyton was always loaded at WR and had above average RB's and a good OL........Brees has had probably more SUPER weapons than anybody.....same with Rodgers.......Brady had guys who excelled in BB's system for sure.....but rarely any (Moss excluded) that would qualify as "Superstars".......

That's not exactly true for brady's case. Brady didn't put up great numbers until after the pats abandoned the running game in 2006.....while montana had jerry rice and still didn't put up great numbers like marino (who had less talent)