Why maximizing Brady's run is so important

[BobDigital]

So we know BB wants the next QB in place. We all do of course. It looks like he is not looking to trade JAG. However I really question that move (depending on how reasonable the asking price is). This is because with a little research we can see the difference between good and great QB play is huge when it comes to winning.

But lets look at great QBs only at first. Of the 51 super bowls won we have HOF QBs (or borderline ones waiting to get in) winning 40. Brady 5, Peyton 2, Brees 1, Rodgers 1 Ben R. 2 (not in yet but likely will be. I added their wins to the HOF group and got 40 of 51).

Even if you question Namath and a few other HOF QBs (I do as well) it is clear that great QBs (HOF level) hold about 75% of the super bowl wins vs the rest of the NFL.

To look at this another way that means QBs that are just very good but not HOF don't tend to win regularly. Looking at good but not great QBs you might have a Russel Wilson or Eli Manning who may win if they got hot and the stars align but history is litered with very good QBs who never won.

Just guys who were active in the past 15 years. McNabb, McNair, Ryan, Rivers, Cousins, Stafford, Romo, Luck, Pennington, Bledsoe, Garcia, Hasselback, Newton, Palmer, Green, Gannon. They never won anything but are QBs your team in general would be happy to have. Considered on the top 10 most years. I am sure I am forgetting a few very good ones just in that time frame.

The point is even if JAG turns out to be a legit Good QBs the odds of a "good" QB never winning is more likely than winning by a large margin. You need to be great to give your team a high likelihood of winning a championship at some point.

However the odds JAG will be that is pretty low not cause of him but just cause it is hard to find HOF QBs. What is comes down to is your odds are much better with a few years of elite play compared to 10-15 years of good play and it is not even close. Maximizing Brady is clearly the answer if you are looking to win the most super bowls you possibly can. Even if Brady only plays 2-3 more years it is still the better option statistically.

 

[oldrover]

Maximizing Brady is clearly the answer if you are looking to win the most super bowls you possibly can.

 

[Simpelton]

Even if you question Namath and a few other HOF QBs (I do as well) it is clear that great QBs (HOF level) hold about 75% of the super bowl wins vs the rest of the NFL.

Bit of a chicken-and-egg question considering how many of those quarterbacks cemented their legacy as great or HOF quarterbacks BY winning Superbowls.

One point to make -- while it would be absurd to simply expect Garoppolo to be the next Steve Young type who picks up the Franchise where Brady leaves it off and just keeps going. completely dismissing the possibility is also unreasonable. At the moment Garoppolo is an X factor. It could break in our favor and he be great, it could break against us and he get hurt and we never see him again. Or anything in between.

The reason to hold onto Brady is that he's less unpredictable than the wild card that is Garoppolo at this time. We've seen him in action and know what he's capable of and what he's capable of is amazing moments, especially when we need him the most.

The reason not to maximize Brady at Garoppolo's expense is we simply do not know how much longer he'll hold this form, Brady is beginning to become a bit of an X factor himself. We have reasonable hopes that he'll keep going for at least a few more years, but a quarterback's journey through the NFL rarely ends in a way that is pretty or enjoyable to all parties. Riding Brady to the bitter end could very well mean a very bitter end indeed, and to more than just Tom Brady's career.

The fact that we don't like to think about the end and have plenty of reason to avoid thinking about it doesn't actually mean we can whistle past the graveyard and ignore the risks involved in keeping Brady beyond the next 2 years. These facts have to be placed in the balance sheet when the decision is made. They can't simply be ignored because we WANT to ignore them.

We know Garoppolo has a very good chance of being an average or better quarterback. We don't know that about Brissett or anyone else we could replace Brady with. We don't know when the journey is actually going to end for Brady -- we know that he hopes, and we hope, that he'll be an excellent quarterback for a little while longer. But mistaking hope for fact is an easy trap for fans and one that leads almost inevitably to heartbreak.

At the end of the day the correct decision may very well be to retain Brady past the next 2 years at Garoppolo's expense. Whatever his body is up to off the field, it hasn't affected Brady's performance on the field yet in a measurable way. The answer to the question could easily be, keep Brady as a Patriot for the intermediate future and keep the carousel of replacements behind him turning until events force the moment to come.

What we can't do, what we can't AFFORD to do if we want to keep the Patriots at a premiere franchise level, is fail to at least analyze and ask the question of when it is in fact time to move on. To twist the common aphorism, failure to decide is a decision to fail.

 

[Nehalem]

Steve Young and Aaron Rodgers are pretty much the best case scenario of moving on from a HOF QB.

In the past 3 years Brady has as many Super Bowl wins as Steve Young and Aaron Rodgers combined.

 

[BobDigital]

Bit of a chicken-and-egg question considering how many of those quarterbacks cemented their legacy as great or HOF quarterbacks BY winning Superbowls.

True. I could have said 80% and kept all the HOF QBs on but I brought it down to 75% saying a few HOF QBs don't deserve the "Great" title. I think even if you knock it down to 70% the logic still holds up clearly. I see what you mean about chicken and the egg but my answer is the egg. Great QBs win titles generally. Most don't get recognized as great for doing it. If you win a title and aren't great generally history and fans and HOF voters see the difference.

One point to make -- while it would be absurd to simply expect Garoppolo to be the next Steve Young type who picks up the Franchise where Brady leaves it off and just keeps going. completely dismissing the possibility is also unreasonable. At the moment Garoppolo is an X factor. It could break in our favor and he be great, it could break against us and he get hurt and we never see him again. Or anything in between.

I am not dismissing the possibility I am saying it is unlikely cause it is. It is unlikely he is even very good. If he turns out to be Rivers/McNabb/Ryan that is a great IMO but also not likely just by the odds. I think he can be pretty good though and I am confident he has a reasonable likelihood to be that. Still even if he is as good as Rivers or McNabb that is probably not good enough to win going by history statistically is my point.

The reason to hold onto Brady is that he's less unpredictable than the wild card that is Garoppolo at this time. We've seen him in action and know what he's capable of and what he's capable of is amazing moments, especially when we need him the most.

Yes. But the simpler way to put it for the purposes of my point is the reason to hold on to him is cause he is a great QB and that is the hardest asset to find and the most important to have.

The reason not to maximize Brady at Garoppolo's expense is we simply do not know how much longer he'll hold this form, Brady is beginning to become a bit of an X factor himself. We have reasonable hopes that he'll keep going for at least a few more years, but a quarterback's journey through the NFL rarely ends in a way that is pretty or enjoyable to all parties. Riding Brady to the bitter end could very well mean a very bitter end indeed, and to more than just Tom Brady's career.

The fact that we don't like to think about the end and have plenty of reason to avoid thinking about it doesn't actually mean we can whistle past the graveyard and ignore the risks involved in keeping Brady beyond the next 2 years. These facts have to be placed in the balance sheet when the decision is made. They can't simply be ignored because we WANT to ignore them.

We know Garoppolo has a very good chance of being an average or better quarterback. We don't know that about Brissett or anyone else we could replace Brady with. We don't know when the journey is actually going to end for Brady -- we know that he hopes, and we hope, that he'll be an excellent quarterback for a little while longer. But mistaking hope for fact is an easy trap for fans and one that leads almost inevitably to heartbreak.

At the end of the day the correct decision may very well be to retain Brady past the next 2 years at Garoppolo's expense. Whatever his body is up to off the field, it hasn't affected Brady's performance on the field yet in a measurable way. The answer to the question could easily be, keep Brady as a Patriot for the intermediate future and keep the carousel of replacements behind him turning until events force the moment to come.

What we can't do, what we can't AFFORD to do if we want to keep the Patriots at a premiere franchise level, is fail to at least analyze and ask the question of when it is in fact time to move on. To twist the common aphorism, failure to decide is a decision to fail.

I am just going to quote the rest at once. I agree with a lot of your points but i look at it a different way. I see it as a risk assessment with values. Lets assume Brady only plays 2 more years at an elite level (on the low side for most but lets assume it). Lets assume also JAG goes on to be a good QB and top 10 staple but not elite (most fans would consider this a win and is more likely than him being a true elite ala Brady/Brees whatever.

Now lets solve.

Lets say elite QBs win on an average of 1 time every 10 years. That is pretty fair to say IMO cause assuming my 75% figure (37 SB wins by elite QBs) is fair this would mean (assuming a 15 year career for each elite QB and a assuming the 1 in 10 odds we have 37*10) 370/15 = 24.6 (call it 25). That in the SB era there have been 25 elite QBs. Sounds right to me about. I think this 1 in 10 estimate works. Also this assumes Brady is an average elite QB (he is not but lets assume it)

Lets assume every other QB that ever won is good (they aren't as some sucked but lets assume it). Lets assume also for every elite QB there are 3 good ones (a low ball probably but sure). 14 titles with 75 QBs 75x14 = 1050. 14/1050 or 1 in 75 chance a year for a good QB.

This means if JAG has a 15 year career giving him some of the best odds I can he has a 1 in 5 chance to win a ring. Brady has a 1 in 5 chance in 2 years.

So to make the odds equal of both winning the same number of championships we had to assume everything against Brady and give JAG every benefit of the doubt. However if Brady plays 3 or 4 years it is not even close odds wise unless JAG turns out to be elite.

The smart money says Brady is the best bet to maximize championships IMO.

 

[Nehalem]

True. I could have said 80% and kept all the HOF QBs on but I brought it down to 75% saying a few HOF QBs don't deserve the "Great" title. I think even if you knock it down to 70% the logic still holds up clearly. I see what you mean about chicken and the egg but my answer is the egg. Great QBs win titles generally. Most don't get recognized as great for doing it. If you win a title and aren't great generally history and fans and HOF voters see the difference.



I am not dismissing the possibility I am saying it is unlikely cause it is. It is unlikely he is even very good. If he turns out to be Rivers/McNabb/Ryan that is a great IMO but also not likely just by the odds. I think he can be pretty good though and I am confident he has a reasonable likelihood to be that. Still even if he is as good as Rivers or McNabb that is probably not good enough to win going by history statistically is my point.



Yes. But the simpler way to put it for the purposes of my point is the reason to hold on to him is cause he is a great QB and that is the hardest asset to find and the most important to have.



I am just going to quote the rest at once. I agree with a lot of your points but i look at it a different way. I see it as a risk assessment with values. Lets assume Brady only plays 2 more years at an elite level (on the low side for most but lets assume it). Lets assume also JAG goes on to be a good QB and top 10 staple but not elite (most fans would consider this a win and is more likely than him being a true elite ala Brady/Brees whatever.

Now lets solve.

Lets say elite QBs win on an average of 1 time every 10 years. That is pretty fair to say IMO cause assuming my 75% figure (37 SB wins by elite QBs) is fair this would mean (assuming a 15 year career for each elite QB and a assuming the 1 in 10 odds we have 37*10) 370/15 = 24.6 (call it 25). That in the SB era there have been 25 elite QBs. Sounds right to me about. I think this 1 in 10 estimate works. Also this assumes Brady is an average elite QB (he is not but lets assume it)

Lets assume every other QB that ever won is good (they aren't as some sucked but lets assume it. Lets assume also for every elite QB there are 3 good ones (a low ball probably but sure). 14 titles with 75 QBs 75x14 = 1050. 14/1050 or 1 in 75.

This means if JAG has a 15 year career giving him some of the best odds I can he has a 1 in 5 chance to win a ring. Brady has a 1 in 5 chance in 2 years.

So to make the odds equal of both winning the same number of championships we had to assume everything against Brady and give JAG every benefit of the doubt. However if Brady plays 3 or 4 years it is not even close odds wise unless JAG turns out to be elite.

The smart money says Brady is the best bet to maximize championships IMO.

You are vastly underselling Brady. He has won 5 Super Bowls in 15 years. So he actually has a 1 in 3 chance in 1 year.

In fact Brady has been to more conference championship games than P Manning, Rodgers, and Brees COMBINED

 

[BobDigital]

You are vastly underselling Brady. He has won 5 Super Bowls in 15 years. So he actually has a 1 in 3 chance in 1 year.

In fact Brady has been to more conference championship games than P Manning, Rodgers, and Brees COMBINED

I am aware of that. I just decided to throw Brady into a batch with every other elite QB and spread the odds out. Also the HOF QBs don't average 15 year careers I think so the odds are probably better than 1 in 10 but it is a simple number to look at.

I already said i calculated it in such a way to favor JAG as much as i could (besides making him elite)

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

This is not a knock against Brady in any way, but I think a quarterback who has developed for years as his understudy and understands the concepts in New England has a better chance of being great than he might elsewhere. More importantly, though, is the idea that Belichick is making the ultimate decision here, and he will only be moving on to Jimmy Garopollo if he thinks Garopollo is a championship quarterback and not just "average to good." So, if the Patriots do hook their wagon to JG, it would be silly at that point to believe his expectations are to be merely a capable - but not great - quarterback. If anyone replaces a still productive and motivated Tom Brady, it's an easy bet that Belichick believes he is on to something big, and he is usually right. I'm sure that this decision dominates his thoughts.

 

[Simpelton]

True. I could have said 80% and kept all the HOF QBs on but I brought it down to 75% saying a few HOF QBs don't deserve the "Great" title. I think even if you knock it down to 70% the logic still holds up clearly. I see what you mean about chicken and the egg but my answer is the egg. Great QBs win titles generally. Most don't get recognized as great for doing it. If you win a title and aren't great generally history and fans and HOF voters see the difference.



I am not dismissing the possibility I am saying it is unlikely cause it is. It is unlikely he is even very good. If he turns out to be Rivers/McNabb/Ryan that is a great IMO but also not likely just by the odds. I think he can be pretty good though and I am confident he has a reasonable likelihood to be that. Still even if he is as good as Rivers or McNabb that is probably not good enough to win going by history statistically is my point.



Yes. But the simpler way to put it for the purposes of my point is the reason to hold on to him is cause he is a great QB and that is the hardest asset to find and the most important to have.



I am just going to quote the rest at once. I agree with a lot of your points but i look at it a different way. I see it as a risk assessment with values. Lets assume Brady only plays 2 more years at an elite level (on the low side for most but lets assume it). Lets assume also JAG goes on to be a good QB and top 10 staple but not elite (most fans would consider this a win and is more likely than him being a true elite ala Brady/Brees whatever.

Now lets solve.

Lets say elite QBs win on an average of 1 time every 10 years. That is pretty fair to say IMO cause assuming my 75% figure (37 SB wins by elite QBs) is fair this would mean (assuming a 15 year career for each elite QB and a assuming the 1 in 10 odds we have 37*10) 370/15 = 24.6 (call it 25). That in the SB era there have been 25 elite QBs. Sounds right to me about. I think this 1 in 10 estimate works. Also this assumes Brady is an average elite QB (he is not but lets assume it)

Lets assume every other QB that ever won is good (they aren't as some sucked but lets assume it. Lets assume also for every elite QB there are 3 good ones (a low ball probably but sure). 14 titles with 75 QBs 75x14 = 1050. 14/1050 or 1 in 75.

This means if JAG has a 15 year career giving him some of the best odds I can he has a 1 in 5 chance to win a ring. Brady has a 1 in 5 chance in 2 years.

So to make the odds equal of both winning the same number of championships we had to assume everything against Brady and give JAG every benefit of the doubt. However if Brady plays 3 or 4 years it is not even close odds wise unless JAG turns out to be elite.

The smart money says Brady is the best bet to maximize championships IMO.

Excellent post.
No doubt Brady as he is right now would beat Garoppolo out in a straight up competition for the same job. If we could count on Brady being what he is right now for each of the next 5 years the decision would be a no-brainer.

It would also be a no-brainer if the Superbowl was the only practical objective. Other objectives we have taken for granted for a very long time include making the playoffs, winning playoff games, being an entertaining product to watch, and making the owner money. These are objectives that other franchises can't take for granted in quite the same way, and objectives that having a reliably good quarterback, even if he isn't a great one, can help a franchise achieve.

These are the objectives that require "After Brady, who?" to have a legitimate, well-considered answer. Just because we take them for granted now does not mean we'll always be able to. I'm sure the San Francisco 49ers thought it would go on forever too, especially after Steve Young took up the torch so well.

These are the assets that Bledsoe gave us and why his presence was actually a big advantage to the franchise even though he never managed to be more than a good quarterback himself. (I've said in the past that after the Brady era we will probably look at the Bledsoe era more charitably; this is what I'm talking about). This is why Bledsoe was a necessary stepping stone to the Brady era. It was the team we tried to build around our good-not-great quarterback that our unanticipated legend took to the Superbowl. Without the Bledsoe era, Brady may not have had the talent around him to even show us what he had.

It's also why, if we step off the all time great era into another respectably solid quarterback's era in the person of Garoppolo, we'll have done fairly well for ourselves. At the very least, Garoppolo would be good enough to keep the Krafts in business, keep Foxboro as a destination worth going to, and give the team a chance to keep rebuilding itself and competing for the top. And you never know. We may all be underestimating the hell out of Mr. Garoppolo. Not like it hasn't happened before.

Right now Brady is as good or better a bet to meet all of these objectives compared to Garoppolo as well as his vastly superior odds of winning a Superbowl. But if winning the Superbowl ever comes off the table sometime in this lifespan, due for example to severe decline on Brady's part, or due to a failure in team architecture or aging, injury or disappearance of key assets that prevent Brady from being able to put the team over the top (if the Patriots make some big mistakes in the draft and wind up spending a few years in Breesville for example), Garoppolo can be expected to have a growing, and eventually superior, chance of meeting these other objectives. He'll be developing and getting stronger, especially if he is given (and proves up to the task of) a starting role so that he can really start gaining big league experience, while at the same time the best Brady might have done is a heroic effort of self-maintenjance.

Again, it's a balancing act. The ascending line and the line we expect to be descending soon will eventually converge. The decision of what to do is based almost entirely on WHEN you expect those lines to meet.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The reason to hold onto Brady is that he's less unpredictable than the wild card that is Garoppolo at this time. We've seen him in action and know what he's capable of and what he's capable of is amazing moments, especially when we need him the most.

If that were the case, Garoppolo would likely be starting this year. (I'll explain this in a post in a day or two.)

 

[heavyde050]

This is not a knock against Brady in any way, but I think a quarterback who has developed for years as his understudy and understands the concepts in New England has a better chance of being great than he might elsewhere. More importantly, though, is the idea that Belichick is making the ultimate decision here, and he will only be moving on to Jimmy Garopollo if he thinks Garopollo is a championship quarterback and not just "average to good." So, if the Patriots do hook their wagon to JG, it would be silly at that point to believe his expectations are to be merely a capable - but not great - quarterback. If anyone replaces a still productive and motivated Tom Brady, it's an easy bet that Belichick believes he is on to something big, and he is usually right. I'm sure that this decision dominates his thoughts.

I think I am reading the post wrong. Is it saying that Jimmy G will beat out Brady for the starting job straight up?
I would be amazed if that happened this year or next.
I get wanting Jimmy to be the guy after Brady, but to think he is better than Brady for this upcoming season seems a little off.

 

[BobDigital]

By the way though I am confident in my math skills if anyone wants to check the numbers feel free. Also i looked at top QBs and did find IMO about 24-25 id term great played time in the super bowl era. So that part also holds up (though some only played in the super bowl era at the end of their careers).

If the numbers hold up it is telling. It says pretty much your odds go up 750% to win a championship by having a Brees/Rodgers over a Ryan/McNabb/Flacco

Even though they cost nearly the same amount on your roster. That is insane.

 

[Nehalem]

If the numbers hold up it is telling. It says pretty much your odds go up 750% to win a championship by having a Brees/Rodgers over a Ryan/McNabb/Flacco

The numbers don't really hold up.

Brees/Rodgers actually have the same number of of rings as Flacco. And Ryan is the greatest comeback in history away from also having the same numbers.

If we take a further step back and look at Conference Championship games to get a higher sample size.

Brees 1-1
Rodgers 1-2
Flacco 1-2
Ryan 1-1
McNabb 1-4

And quite honestly Brees and Rodgers don't look like elite playoff performers.

Basically if Brady doesn't overcome a 25 point deficit in Super Bowl LI Brees and Rodgers would have exactly the same playoff success as Flacco and Ryan.

 

[Nehalem]

How to win multiple Super Bowls in the Salary Cap Era as a starting QB

(1) Be Tom Brady
(2) P. Manning: Play Rex Grossman and ride your defense
(3) B Roethlisberger: Pay off the refs
(4) John Elway: Cheat the cap and ride HOF caliber RB, when RBs were valuable
(5) E. Manning:

 

[Tony2046]

The reason not to maximize Brady at Garoppolo's expense is we simply do not know how much longer he'll hold this form, Brady is beginning to become a bit of an X factor himself. We have reasonable hopes that he'll keep going for at least a few more years, but a quarterback's journey through the NFL rarely ends in a way that is pretty or enjoyable to all parties. Riding Brady to the bitter end could very well mean a very bitter end indeed, and to more than just Tom Brady's career.

It's not going to be a "bitter end" rather just the end of a fantastic ride. Even if that's a 1-15 season it should/would morph from a season of championship hopes to a season of watching his last games.

Can you imagine during a 1-15 season in which the Pats switched midway from Brady to Brissett (or whomever) and in the last home game Brady comes in during the last quarter or the last snaps to end his career? It will be special. I will watch it with family members including my diehard Patsfan children/nephews/nieces who weren't even born during Brady's first SB wins. We will be thankful.

BB and Brady not only defeated the competition. They thoroughly defeated Spygate and Defamegate. They were able to put to rest the asinine concocted scandalgate creations of a Senator's spoiled rotten son who otherwise has zero lifetime accomplishments except for achieving the glorious title of Puppet of the Butthurt owners. The last three years BB, Brady and crew have won in such a fashion and in such an environment that no one except the delusional doubts their GOATness. One of my favorite sporting moments and one that I think will live on infinitely in the sports world will be the massive Goodell booing in the last SB. I believe we will see that image over and over again for the next umpteen years.

I want to watch Brady's last snap in a Patriots uniform and I don't care if that means suffering through a winless season although I highly doubt that will be the case.

I hope they trade JG for a boatload of picks and continue to add to an already elite defense. Fortify the O line. Add weapons. Then when the time has come bring in Brissett or whoever or whomever into an environment in which he can grow game to game without the pressure of having to carry a team to each win. Isn't that the way they groomed Brady?

Bitter ends are when a career of hopes come to an end without a ring. Marino. Sergio Garcia.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I think I am reading the post wrong. Is it saying that Jimmy G will beat out Brady for the starting job straight up?
I would be amazed if that happened this year or next.
I get wanting Jimmy to be the guy after Brady, but to think he is better than Brady for this upcoming season seems a little off.

No. I am saying that if the Patriots ultimately decide to move on from Brady in favor of Garopollo,

(a) it doesn't mean that Garopollo is actually the better man for the job at that moment in time but more of a futures based bet,

(b) and, if Brady is anything close to where he is now, and the Patriots decide to move on from him in favor of Garopollo, that itself should indicate that Belichick doesn't see Garopollo as a "average to good" quarterback with a distant shot at a Super Bowl, which was what the OP was posing. Rather, if that happens, you can be quite sure that Belichick rates Garopollo very highly and sees him as a player who can put them in contention all the time. Whether or not he is an elite quarterback, not sure, but I highly doubt they send Brady out to pasture for a guy who they aren't quite sure will be, at the least, a very good quarterback.

 

[heavyde050]

No. I am saying that if the Patriots ultimately decide to move on from Brady in favor of Garopollo,

(a) it doesn't mean that Garopollo is actually the better man for the job at that moment in time but more of a futures based bet,

(b) and, if Brady is anything close to where he is now, and the Patriots decide to move on from him in favor of Garopollo, that itself should indicate that Belichick doesn't see Garopollo as a "average to good" quarterback with a distant shot at a Super Bowl, which was what the OP was posing. Rather, if that happens, you can be quite sure that Belichick rates Garopollo very highly and sees him as a player who can put them in contention all the time. Whether or not he is an elite quarterback, not sure, but I highly doubt they send Brady out to pasture for a guy who they aren't quite sure will be, at the least, a very good quarterback.

Thanks for the clarification.

Edit - b covers it well and gives me more confidence that BB will do the right thing as I think it is pretty much a no-brainer that Brady is better for the Pats for 2017.

 

[BobDigital]

The numbers don't really hold up.

Brees/Rodgers actually have the same number of of rings as Flacco. And Ryan is the greatest comeback in history away from also having the same numbers.

If we take a further step back and look at Conference Championship games to get a higher sample size.

Brees 1-1
Rodgers 1-2
Flacco 1-2
Ryan 1-1
McNabb 1-4

And quite honestly Brees and Rodgers don't look like elite playoff performers.

Basically if Brady doesn't overcome a 25 point deficit in Super Bowl LI Brees and Rodgers would have exactly the same playoff success as Flacco and Ryan.

I was curious to read your post after the first line but I don't see how what you wrote shows the numbers don't hold up.

This is not about comparing rings form 1 single elite QB to another non elite QB this is about the odds of an elite QB getting a ring vs a good QB.

The face Brees/Rodgers have the same number of rings as Flacco doesn't matter. The fact that Elite QBs have X number of rings and good QBs have Y and comparing them is the point.

We can always point out a single case "Marino has no rings but Eli has 2 so that proves this doesn't work" but in the end it is about the overall sample vs overall sample but pointing out individual situations.

I could easily point out Aikman has 3 more rings than McNabb/Ryan/Rivers/Romo/Garcia/Stafford/McNair and Gannon combined who never won a thing.

That doesn't prove the case. It is about the overall likelihood. Also anything we could say about things going 1 way we could say the other way. Brady could have easily gone 7-0 (2 less for "good QBs" and 2 more for elite QBs.

Kelly lost a close one to Hostetler. It cuts both ways. Overall the sample is fair on average though imo.

Also this is about what wins championships not what gets you there or to the final 4. We have to go by actual history IMO. In SB51 yes it was a huge improbable come back but it was made possible cause 1 side had a great QB and 1 side had only a good QB who made key mistakes at the end a great QB tends not too.

SB51 is not an argument against this point if anything it is an argument for it.

 

[Ivan]

Jesus I hope Belichick trades Garrapolo and puts an end to this.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The numbers don't really hold up.

Brees/Rodgers actually have the same number of of rings as Flacco. And Ryan is the greatest comeback in history away from also having the same numbers.

If we take a further step back and look at Conference Championship games to get a higher sample size.

Brees 1-1
Rodgers 1-2
Flacco 1-2
Ryan 1-1
McNabb 1-4

And quite honestly Brees and Rodgers don't look like elite playoff performers.

Basically if Brady doesn't overcome a 25 point deficit in Super Bowl LI Brees and Rodgers would have exactly the same playoff success as Flacco and Ryan.

We have heard the "championships are a team accomplishment" for years as a way to discredit Brady, and typically it has been an irrational and over-the-top argument from haters. That said, the argument when used in a rational, objective sense has validity. I don't think it's fair to look at these players only with their W/L record in the playoffs as a fair gauge. Aaron Rodgers has a 99.4 career playoff passer rating, while Drew Brees is at 100.7. Not that passer rating is everything, or that Brady stinks since his is 10 points lower, but it's pretty hard to fault these guys for a lack of Super Bowls considering those numbers that indicate a high level of postseason play. Sure, they may have failed in huge situations when they were unable to rally the troops, but you can't dismiss that Brady plays for the best organization in sports. The coaching/team advantage argument against Brady may actually have a point if he weren't so far ahead of the field that it becomes silly.

I for one believe that if Aaron Rodgers had a coach/GM like Bill Belichick, he would certainly have more than one Super Bowl. Jimmy Garopollo would theoretically be playing for the best run organization in professional sports, so I'm not sure how much these comparisons are worth.