The greatest quarterback ever?

[stcjones]

Why don't you see him doing it?

I just think that because it takes a fair amount of luck and "INTANGIBLES" to make it to the SB (Never mind winning it) that Brady's chances at this point are minimized. Getting back there again during his career will be tough...winning the SB in the time he has left in the game may be impossible. He and the Pats wasted opportunities in 07 and last year, and should have made it there again in 06 (against Colts...should have won that game and I am convinced would have beaten Bears. Then the missed playoff opps against Jests etc....and its hard to give him the title of the BEST ever. I love Brady and am die hard pats fan...but gotta be realistic on this topic.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think that unless Brady wins 1-2 more SBs ( which unfortunately I don't see him doing) he will NOT be in the discussion of GOAT. Brady (and Pats) gave WASTED alot of opportunities since 04...and that has to be taken into consideration. I think if he wins 1 more he would be considered if not..
No Way....Montana will probably still be considered GOAT by most...

:confused2:

Brady's already in the discussion.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Brady needs at least one more SB to move up to the top of the ladder

Right now,Joe Montana stands alone as the best ever......the majority of those who don't agree are probably too young or not even alive at the time of Montana's greatest years to realize how much he dominated defenses at times.

Some will say,well Montana always had guys like Dwight Clark and Jerry Rice at his disposal while Brady had plenty of JAGs during the top years.....that's a valid argument that is hard to argue over.

 

[condon84]

I think that unless Brady wins 1-2 more SBs ( which unfortunately I don't see him doing) he will NOT be in the discussion of GOAT. Brady (and Pats) gave WASTED alot of opportunities since 04...and that has to be taken into consideration. I think if he wins 1 more he would be considered if not..
No Way....Montana will probably still be considered GOAT by most...

I think Brady losing two SBs has hurt him in a lot of peoples eyes as far as considering him GOAT. Montana being 4-0 in the biggest games is something Brady will have to try to overcome to get him over the hump over Joe. Whether that means winning one more or two more SBs than Montana.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

3 dropped passes away from probably having 6 SB rings

Caldwell
Samuel INT
Welker

That's a good way to put yourself in the loony bin. There are those who would argue that he's also a tuck call reversal, an OB Kickoff and a dazed, puking QB away from zero SB rings.

That's why his achievement is so great. Winning three rings is beyond awesome because of all the things that can stop someone from getting them.

And, that's why Montana and Bradshaw's four is so remarkable as well.

Let's enjoy what he has accomplished and not "whatif" ourselves to insanity.

 

[jason423]

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's a good way to put yourself in the loony bin. There are those who would argue that he's also a tuck call reversal, an OB Kickoff and a dazed, puking QB away from zero SB rings...

Those people are idiots. The puking QB is known as "the other team", and the tuck call reversal is known as "Getting the call right".

 

[JJDChE]

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.

Painting is an individual sport. Football is not. Despite how great any one player is, the failings of the others can render it 'unsuccessful', where in another context (i.e. on another team) it would have been a 'successful' performance. You must consider the player, in part, separate of the team. If you only evaluate the player on the success of the team or conversely, on success separated from the team, then your assessment is incomplete.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

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.

Good analysis, though I think Roger Staubach deserves some mention as well.

To me, six NFL QB's belong in the GOAT discussion: Brady, Graham, Montana, Starr, Staubach, Unitas. That air is so rarefied, just being in the discussion is almost enough and I probably wouldn't argue very much with folks who wanted to add their favorites as numbers seven to 10, since the game has changed so much over the years and since so many different players brought such excellence to the position.

If you do it by era, clearly Brady stands alone post-cap, IMHO. Beyond that, the GOAT GOAT is one of the great discussions in all of sports when carried on by knowledgeable and unbiased people.

For the fun of it, I went to Pro-Football-Reference.com and found that 871 guys have played as QB in the recorded history of the NFL that they follow, from Tony Adams to Jim Zorn. Being considered in the top six all time means that a guy has risen above 865 of them. As I said, rarefied air.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I can't lose the notion that it is a team accomplishment, not a QB accomplishment. ...When judging the man and the QB I don't like putting it all on a simple W-L record in post season.

You're relatively new to the board and often seem to have some interesting points to make. I'd suggest that you re-read your posts and edit them a bit since they get confusing and unclear. I say that because I know I've done the same at times. One gets excited to make a point and loses the forest for the trees.

Free Advice. Take it or leave it. Good luck.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

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.

Excellent point.

I'm always amazed though at how benign Brady is towards Lloyd Carr. From what I can see, he misjudged the talent before him to an almost unfathomable degree, to the Pats benefit, of course

But still, what do you think? Do you think that TB is just being "polite" to Carr by not saying anything about him or do you think it's genuine...or do we have to wait for TB's book to find out?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Those people are idiots. The puking QB is known as "the other team", and the tuck call reversal is known as "Getting the call right".

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.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

:confused2:

Brady's already in the discussion.

Absolutely right. The point at this level is "who is in the discussion" as GOAT. Brady is clearly there as are a very small group of other Greats.

 

[PatsWSB47]

I just think that because it takes a fair amount of luck and "INTANGIBLES" to make it to the SB (Never mind winning it) that Brady's chances at this point are minimized. Getting back there again during his career will be tough...winning the SB in the time he has left in the game may be impossible. He and the Pats wasted opportunities in 07 and last year, and should have made it there again in 06 (against Colts...should have won that game and I am convinced would have beaten Bears. Then the missed playoff opps against Jests etc....and its hard to give him the title of the BEST ever. I love Brady and am die hard pats fan...but gotta be realistic on this topic.

I agree with the shoulda-couldas but that they wasted those opportunities have nothing to do with the future do they? In fact the Pats have an excellent chance to return to the big one this year.........at least as good of a chance that every other "favorite" has. If you doubt the Patriots chances then you have to doubt these other contenders equally based on the criteria you presented.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

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.

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.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Pity the NFL does not know its own history. Sammy Baugh - even though he had a full back number, 33 - was the best QB in history.

Before him we have 4 man back fields like in that three stooges episode. Any one of which might pass it.

After him (and Sid Luckman's great season in Chicago) it was three man back fields and the QB was primarily a passer, not another RB who might pass.

I like Brady, but he did not redefine the position.

Oh did I mention that was when they went both ways? Baugh led the league one year in interceptions caught when he played as a safety.

Thanks for mentioning Baugh. I find it funny when people out here think the "Wildcat" is a new formation. Duh! It's the old Single Wing with a twist. And Baugh straddled the era that moved from the Single Wing to the T formation, but even that happened for him half way through his career. But you are right that the game was never the same after he played.

I guess most of us don't bring the pre-1946 (the NFL's definition of the dividing line between the modern era and the "pre modern" times) guys into the discussion, but talking about the GOAT without at least mentioning Baugh and Sid Luckman and Jimmy Conzelman probably just isn't right, is it?

Baugh was to QB's in many ways what Paul Brown and Bill Walsh were to HC's. The game wasn't the same after any of them.

It will be interesting if history judges the innovations of Bill Belichick in the same way, but that book is yet to be written. Belichick is, from my perspective, a more significant HC than Lombardi, who honed the art of inspiration and winning but didn't fundamentally change the way people think about the game, which I think one can argue Belichick has done.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

I think Brady losing two SBs has hurt him in a lot of peoples eyes as far as considering him GOAT. Montana being 4-0 in the biggest games is something Brady will have to try to overcome to get him over the hump over Joe. Whether that means winning one more or two more SBs than Montana.

Montana is 4-0 in the super bowl but 4-3 in championship games. Brady is 3-2 in the super bowl but 5-1 in championship games. He got there less times, so he gets more credit? If Brady never got back to the SB after 04, he'd have a perfect record too. I don't know if that should be absolute decider.

You wanna know what Montana's record was from 85-87 in the playoffs?
0 wins 3 losses, 0TD's 4 INT's and in two of those losses they only scored 3 points. I'm only pointing this out because people seem to gloss over that fact that Montana had his struggles and losses in the playoffs also. Brady's are more recent and therefore more memorable.

Now I'm not necessarily saying Brady is better because Montana set the bar pretty high. I'm not ready to say Brady is better at this time but when all is said and done it may be tough to argue that he isn't.

 

[jmt57]

In my opinion it is not possible to objectively compare quarterbacks from different eras or even different decades due to all the changes in rules, coaching, preparation, conditioning, nutrition, etc. To me the best way to compare players is to contrast them against their peers.

To me the best quarterbacks in the history of the National Football League are Johnny Unitas, Otto Graham and Sammy Baugh.

Second tier includes Joe Montana, Peyton Manning, Dan Marino and Tom Brady.

Third tier is up for debate ... Starr, Bradshaw, Layne, Tittle, Aikman, Luckman, etc.

 

[condon84]

Montana is 4-0 in the super bowl but 4-3 in championship games. Brady is 3-2 in the super bowl but 5-1 in championship games. He got there less times, so he gets more credit? If Brady never got back to the SB after 04, he'd have a perfect record too. I don't know if that should be absolute decider.

You wanna know what Montana's record was from 85-87 in the playoffs?
0 wins 3 losses, 0TD's 4 INT's and in two of those losses they only scored 3 points. I'm only pointing this out because people seem to gloss over that fact that Montana had his struggles and losses in the playoffs also. Brady's are more recent and therefore more memorable.

Now I'm not necessarily saying Brady is better because Montana set the bar pretty high. I'm not ready to say Brady is better at this time but when all is said and done it may be tough to argue that he isn't.

You can argue these points till your blue, but at the end of the day, most people will only care about how athletes perform in the biggest of games, fair or not.

The fact that Montana never lost in the SB and performed at such a high level will not be lost. Brady, in his first three SB appearance, to many, was probably on his way to supplanting Joe. But these past two SB performance, if you're honest with yourself, has not been up to par. Both loses has got a lot to do with Brady underperforming. Whether you think it's fair or not, this will ultimately be held against him if you compare both Joe and Brady's accomplishments. Now, if Brady wins more SBs than Joe, then the whole argument changes. And I don't see how you can't put Brady on top.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

I always wondered why a name never comes up when talking about some of the greatest QBs ever... That guy is Troy Aikman.

Was it because he retired at a young age of 34 or does he not deserve recognition of the QB of one of the most dominant teams in consecutive years in history and a player who was key turning a 1-15 team into a multiple SB champion?

I believe if Troy decided to play,he might have won at least another.