The Tom Brady playing now is better than the 07 version.

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I rank Brady's best seasons like this:

1. 2010
2. 2007
3. 2006

In 2006, Brady led an offense to within minutes of the Super Bowl, scoring 34 points in Indy, with a team whose number one receiver was Reche Caldwell. Caldwell played 8 more games in his career because he wasn't even good enough to make the roster on any other team. He was as good in 2006 as 2007, but he didn't have the weapons. 2009 was an anomaly because the Pats had no depth behind Moss and Welker, plus Brady was playing with broken ribs/fingers. Point being, Brady has always been the same quarterback (when healthy) for the last five years; he is the best quarterback in the NFL.

 

[Off The Grid]

What people forget is going into that MNF game against the bills in 09 we were all wondering if he would ever be the same.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Off The Grid]

The kind of player Tom is, it almost stands to reason he would be playing better now than he ever did. With maturity comes wisdom (or at least that's the way life should work...). Obviously it doesn't work that way for some posters.

The teams he's played on since 2004 haven't gotten better in many respects in areas that ultimately mattered.

As long as he remains healthy I expect to see him become incrementally better until something physically causes his skills to begin to diminish. Hopefully his team is once again beginning to...

Barring injury, given the way he trains and conditions I don't anticipate that happening for at least 4-5 more years.

And even then if the skill erosion is gradual he would project as an above or even well above average starter for probably another 2-3 years.

I know some of you ADHD's here can hardly wait to turn the page so you can project our next HOF leader... Be careful what you wish for. Try enjoying the ride for a change.

Arrogant.

Condescending.

Pedantic.

Off The Grid Approves of this Message.

 

[Off The Grid]

I'm sorry to say that it seems as if a majority of fans judge a player's play by their statistics.

I certainly hope I'm wrong about that, because that approach is laughable.

By the same token, to suggest that Brady was a better QuarterBack from 2001 to 2004, simply because he took home a few rings, is equally ludicrous.

Brady is a far better QuarterBack, now, than he was, then.

And he was already the best in the Game at that point, before he started cranking out big Stats.

***

The simple but unpalatable truth is that it is impossible ~ that word, again: impossible ~ to quantify how good ~ or in Brady's case: great ~ a QuarterBack is, simply by counting his Rings or his TouchDowns.

 

[OhExaulted1]

2007 and 2008 Saints

7-9
8-8

Brees didn't get it done. The Steelers were 6-10 the year before Roethlisberger took over and led the team to a 15-1 record. Roethlisberger's never QB'd a losing season, while Brees has done it twice, once fairly recently.

I'm not saying that you're wrong to rank Roethlisberger #6. The arguments for #4-6 can be pretty good no matter how you order them, IMO, and I'm always looking at ways to get comfortable with ranking the top QBs. I'm just noting that your reason isn't one that holds up as strongly as you seemed to be implying.

IIRC Big Ben was 15-2 that year.

 

[Deus Irae]

IIRC Big Ben was 15-2 that year.

16 game season, so you recall wrongly.

 

[OhExaulted1]

16 game season, so you recall wrongly.

So you don't pay attention to the playoffs? When we go there again I'll make it a point to keep you updated.

 

[Deus Irae]

So you don't pay attention to the playoffs? When we go there again I'll make it a point to keep you updated.

You seem to have missed the point of the discussion. Perhaps going back and reading it from the beginning would help.

 

[OhExaulted1]

You seem to have missed the point of the discussion. Perhaps going back and reading it from the beginning would help.

Poor comeback and your still WRONG. Hate it, dontcha?