I totally agree with keeping Brady as long as he wants to play and is still great. However, it is more than the QB that wins a Super Bowl. Is there an example of a bad team winning a Super Bowl because of a "great" QB? Maybe there is, but I think it is likely the team is great or is playing great at the right time. A lot has to go right to win the Super Bowl and the Patriots have had excellent teams and coaching for a long time. Sometimes (I think it is silly) but Montana actually gets knocked by some for always having such a great defense and weapons and such a great team. These Dynasties all have one thing beyond Super humna QBs, they were all excellent teams as a whole.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 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.
SITE MENU