Brady named to NFL 100 All-Time team

BaconGrundleCandy said:

Brady is the GOAT bc of what he does or doesn't do on the field. Not bc of all his wins. I wouldn't expect you to understand the nuances of the position, so grasping at "QB Wins" is par for the course.

Click to expand...

Any player can amass stats by volume, if they are good.

Its translating those stats into wins on the field where greatness is born.

Brady has done both better than anyone in the history of the league. The stats and wins are intertwined. Its also why names fade - the guys with the stats that never finished the job will never be on the same level as those who
did.

Thats how I look at it.

Pape said:

Any player can amass stats by volume, if they are good.

Its translating those stats into wins on the field where greatness is born.

Brady has done both better than anyone in the history of the league. The stats and wins are intertwined. Its also why names fade - the guys with the stats that never finished the job will never be on the same level as those who
did.

Thats how I look at it.

Click to expand...

It matters for sure but again is Favre even considered #2 or top 5 bc of his? Ben's top 10 in wins I believe but probably wouldn't make anyone's top 20.

Hey everyone has their own opinion but it's brought almost preemptively when its far down the list as to why Brady is the GOAT imo.

Like we're not talking abt what he actually does on the field which is a hell of a lot more important than stats. Or maybe others feel differently.

primetime said:

And they'll probably be right.

I like how this forum is so insecure that it's preemptively defending Brady against criticism from people who won't be born for decades.

Click to expand...

No. Outside of the potential genetic modifications, they'll be as wrong then as the recency-biased posters are today.

BaconGrundleCandy said:

It matters for sure but again is Favre even considered #2 or top 5 bc of his? Ben's top 10 in wins I believe but probably wouldn't make anyone's top 20.

Hey everyone has their own opinion but it's brought almost preemptively when its far down the list as to why Brady is the GOAT imo.

Like we're not talking abt what he actually does on the field which is a hell of a lot more important than stats. Or maybe others feel differently.

Click to expand...

Montana vs Marino ... why does Montana win? because he won. he finish the job.

I don't have a checklist that i tick off items on ... I prefer to look at the totality of the career ...

its something saints fans don't get ... they look at all the records Brees has set, and try to argue he's the best ever because of it... they then offer excuses as to why he has only won once... they are very much like the early to late 2000's Manning fans pimping out the forehead...

hope that makes sense to some one other than me

BaconGrundleCandy said:

You're the insecure fan just mentioned lol. I didn't mention or @ you.
Damm that's one long sentence btw.

Brady is the GOAT bc of what he does or doesn't do on the field. Not bc of all his wins. I wouldn't expect you to understand the nuances of the position, so grasping at "QB Wins" is par for the course.

How do you follow that? Is Favre considered top 3/5? Ben top 10? Of course not bc you look at what they've done on the field. The nuances, the arm talent, the footwork. The acumen & IQ displayed. QB wins is far down the list.

Click to expand...

In making a top 10 list of all-time QBs, wins are at the top of the list, and rightfully so. You're going to be disappointed in the top 10 if you think a bunch of tough luck losers with "all the right fundamentals and football IQ" are not going to sniff the list. Sometimes it is really is fairly simple...Joe Namath really nailed the answer in answering why Brady is the GOAT; he answers the bell more than anyone else in NFL history. Now, are there reasons why he is able to answer the bell that is tied into his skills, including pocket presence, diagnostic abilities, accuracy, footwork, etc.? Of course. But you're missing a lot if you're not putting a heavy emphasis on wins and accomplishments. There's a reason why Brady and Montana are the first two released and why the QB all-decade teams were almost universally (besides Fouts) filled with the guys with the most championships.

It's essentially agreed upon by every great QB that accomplishments - particularly winning - is the fairest way to rank the all-time greatest QBs. When Brady won SB51, virtually every other great QB immediately put him ahead of Montana. Is it possible that number of SB wins just may have played into that?

But I'm sure you know much more than them.

It really doesn't just come down to wins or championships, like it doesn't come down to just volume stats. It's when measuring and contrasting everything that you get the true picture.

Eli Manning has more wins than Joe Montana, Aaron Rodgers, Terry Bradshaw and Jim Kelly. He was more titles than Rodgers and Kelly. Is anybody going to say Eli is better than any of those four?

There's hundreds of components that really should make up a discussion like this. To boil it down to one or two and say ta-da here is the unchallengable list is so Felger and Mazz.

One of my favorite arguments against people who love Rodgers and try to hoist him above Brady is 2014 vs Seattle and 2016 vs Atlanta. Same opponent two weeks apart one gets destroyed and the leads two epic comebacks. It wasn't just the win. It was the quality of the opponent, what was on the line in those games, the situation the team ended up in and how it turned out.

You all know Brady's story in those two games. Look up Rodgers. He was awful and other than that one SB has been in the playoffs and against quality opponents on the road in general.

Era is the toughest of all to really measure. Brady has eclipsed even Montana but the one thing you can argue if you're in the Montana camp is how many more years could Joe have played at a top level with the can't touch the QB rules if the injuries weren't adding up? That Marshall hit alone cost him two year. Other than that even comparing eras Brady was at the top of nearly every category statistically vs his peers and Joe wasn't. Brady even has Montana and Staubach in regular season win % with only Graham as a higher %. Post season only Starr at 9-1 is higher with ten or more starts but nobody is going to argue Brady at 30-10 isn't as impressive if not more so.

primetime said:

And they'll probably be right.

I like how this forum is so insecure that it's preemptively defending Brady against criticism from people who won't be born for decades.

Click to expand...

That's not the point people are making.

Bart Starr retired with the highest QB rating of all-time. He is dismissed by generation Social Media, or whoever the heck they are, because they don't consider the era when he played and the statistical norms. In the last 20 years, I've seen so many guys rise up to "the best" like Young, Favre, Manning, and now Brees, or just had to be top-5 all-time, according to those people because at the time they had either the best passer rating or the most volume TDs/yards.

Point is Brady has been a top 3 stat guy along with his winning, but in twenty years, people who didn't see him play may look at a QB rating under 100 and think they're really smart by arguing he wasn't a great QB. Same goes for all modern QBs. It's an unending cycle.

So, that's why in looking at this list of the top 10, it's important to consider the era and accomplishments (championships, all-pros, etc.) rather than try to do really dumb things like compare Brees and Rodgers to Staubach and Luckman from a pure statistical standpoint.

BaconGrundleCandy said:

You're the insecure fan just mentioned lol. I didn't mention or @ you.
Damm that's one long sentence btw.

Brady is the GOAT bc of what he does or doesn't do on the field. Not bc of all his wins. I wouldn't expect you to understand the nuances of the position, so grasping at "QB Wins" is par for the course.

How do you follow that? Is Favre considered top 3/5? Ben top 10? Of course not bc you look at what they've done on the field. The nuances, the arm talent, the footwork. The acumen & IQ displayed. QB wins is far down the list.

Click to expand...

You are being obtuse here. The qualities that make a QB elite are the qualities that produce wins.

Ring 6 said:

You are being obtuse here. The qualities that make a QB elite are the qualities that produce wins.

Click to expand...

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

Bart Starr retired with the highest QB rating of all-time. He is dismissed by generation Social Media, or whoever the heck they are, because they don't consider the era when he played and the statistical norms.

Click to expand...

Bart Starr didn't make the NFL 75th anniversary team. This isn't a social media or generational problem. Starr was simply a winner who wasn't asked to do a lot unless he had to and then he delivered. I think he's very underrated historically but because of a combination of his stats not matching others of the era in terms of volume, being surrounded by 11 or so HOFers and a top 3 coach of all time he doesn't quite get the credit he deserves.

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

Click to expand...

You put Layne in the top 10 all-time list & had no idea he threw abt 50 more INTs than TDs. You literally have no idea what you're talking abt when it comes to anything besides some casual "blah, blah" drivel.

BaconGrundleCandy said:

You're the insecure fan just mentioned lol. I didn't mention or @ you.
Damm that's one long sentence btw.

Brady is the GOAT bc of what he does or doesn't do on the field. Not bc of all his wins. I wouldn't expect you to understand the nuances of the position, so grasping at "QB Wins" is par for the course.

How do you follow that? Is Favre considered top 3/5? Ben top 10? Of course not bc you look at what they've done on the field. The nuances, the arm talent, the footwork. The acumen & IQ displayed. QB wins is far down the list.

Click to expand...

Do you really think I'm talking about merely adding up total wins to rank QBs with no regard to winning percentage, postseason success, NFL lore, etc.???? Such a straw man. In this very thread I had listed most of the top 22 finalists before the list was released. This included all eras, with guys like Luckman, Van Brocklin, and Layne included...I didn't hit it perfect but was certainly closer than a list of 8 modern QBs who are "the best in history" due to the progressively improving nature of the QB position as it evolves.

That's why you don't evaluate it the way you're saying to. It's about who won during which eras, not about who has the better measurable skills if you transported an old time in his prime to the modern NFL. It's about accomplishments, mainly winning.

BaconGrundleCandy said:

You put Layne in the top 10 all-time list & had no idea he threw abt 50 more INTs than TDs. You literally have no idea what you're talking abt when it comes to anything besides some casual "blah, blah" drivel.

Click to expand...

You don't even realize that during that time throwing more INTs than TDs was not abnormal and did not disqualify you form being elite. This is the 1950s. Again you have zero context for what you're spouting off here. So if Bobby Layne makes the top 10, what are you going to say then? I mean the voters already have him as a finalist despite his supposed bad play.

I was honestly just trying to be nice by saying your post was useful. Do you think I came up with a list of players I thought would make the list without looking at their stats and accomplishments?

• 3× NFL champion (1952, 1953, 1957)
• 6× Pro Bowl (1951–1953, 1956, 1958, 1959)
• 3× First-team All-Pro (1952, 1956, 1958)
• 4× Second-team All-Pro (1952–1954, 1959)
• 2× NFL passing yards leader (1950, 1951)
• NFL passing touchdowns leader (1951)
• NFL 1950s All-Decade Team

All this proves, considering Layne is a finalist and might make the top 10, is that you are looking in the wrong areas to evaluate QBs for this list. It's about accomplishments. You are treating it like an draft profile.

sean10mm said:

I'm really confident Rodgers and Brees aren't on the list. The NFL 100 team has had the exact opposite of recency bias so far. They never missed a chance to drop a 2000s or even 1990s candidate off the list to fit in someone from the black & white era. The panel is basically all middle aged to outright old people.

The only other modern guy to join Brady will be Peyton Manning IMO. I can trash him all day, but he was just a huge presence in the league for what was a very long career by normal standards.

Click to expand...

Yeah a bunch of old farts who actually saw most of these guys play. How unfair that these guys get input.
/sarcasm

Let's see your top 10, @BaconGrundleCandy . Then I will list my definitive one (though I updated it recently but just want to make perhaps one more tweak). And we'll see who is more accurate when the players are announced.

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

You don't even realize that during that time throwing more INTs than TDs was not abnormal and did not disqualify you form being elite. This is the 1950s. Again you have zero context for what you're spouting off here. So if Bobby Layne makes the top 10, what are you going to say then? I mean the voters already have him as a finalist despite his supposed bad play.

I was honestly just trying to be nice by saying your post was useful. Do you think I came up with a list of players I thought would make the list without looking at their stats and accomplishments?

• 3× NFL champion (1952, 1953, 1957)
• 6× Pro Bowl (1951–1953, 1956, 1958, 1959)
• 3× First-team All-Pro (1952, 1956, 1958)
• 4× Second-team All-Pro (1952–1954, 1959)
• 2× NFL passing yards leader (1950, 1951)
• NFL passing touchdowns leader (1951)
• NFL 1950s All-Decade Team

All this proves, considering Layne is a finalist and might make the top 10, is that you are looking in the wrong areas to evaluate QBs for this list. It's about accomplishments. You are treating it like an draft profile.

Click to expand...

PFR doesn't do stats before 1950 and Layne played 48-62 so this doesn't include the first two years of his career but it supports your case.

Player Game Finder Query Results | Pro-Football-Reference.com

everlong said:

PFR doesn't do stats before 1950 and Layne played 48-62 so this doesn't include the first two years of his career but it supports your case.

Player Game Finder Query Results | Pro-Football-Reference.com

View attachment 25653

Click to expand...

Seems like the Peyton Manning of the 50’s. Graham’s winning percentage dominates.

I wonder if it's just a coincidence that most of the shortlist QBs named are members of the NFL All-Decades teams (ADT): bolded are locks imo, not sure if #10 is one of the old guys or Staubach. Don't think any of the non-ADT guys on the bottom get in.

Sammy Baugh (1940s ADT): 2 NFL Titles
Sid Luckman (1940s ADT): 4 NFL Titles
Otto Graham (1950s ADT): 3 NFL Titles
Bobby Lane (1950s ADT): 3 NFL Titles
Norm Van Brocklin (1950s ADT): 2 NFL Titles
Bart Starr (1960s ADT): 3 NFL Titles + 2 SBs
Johnny Unitas (1960s ADT): 2 NFL Titles + 1 SB
Terry Bradshaw (1970s ADT): 4 SBs
Roger Staubach (1970s ADT): 2 SBs
Joe Montana (1980s ADT): 4 SBs
Dan Fouts (1980s ADT)
John Elway (1990s ADT): 2 SBs
Brett Favre (1990s ADT): 1 SB
Tom Brady (2000s ADT): 6 SBs
Peyton Manning (2000s ADT): 2 SBs
Joe Namath (1-0 SB)
Fran Tarkenton (0-3 SB)
Dan Marino (0-1 SB)
Troy Aikman (3-0 SB)
Steve Young (1-0 SB)
Drew Brees (1-0 SB)
Aaron Rodgers (1-0 SB)

The guys that are ADT members all had accomplishments (wins, championships, SBs, mvps, etc.) and got selected "over the others in their decade" not because of their arm talent or pocket presence or draft rating, but because of their accomplishments. This is being selected by folks that know football not by fans.

everlong said:

It really doesn't just come down to wins or championships, like it doesn't come down to just volume stats. It's when measuring and contrasting everything that you get the true picture.

Eli Manning has more wins than Joe Montana, Aaron Rodgers, Terry Bradshaw and Jim Kelly. He was more titles than Rodgers and Kelly. Is anybody going to say Eli is better than any of those four?

Click to expand...

No and I get your point.
Montana 0.713% win (tied w/ Eli at 117 wins)
Bradshaw 0.677% win (10 less wins)
Rodgers 0.650% wins (Rodgers will pass him next year)
Kelly 0.631% win
Manning 0.500% win

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

You don't even realize that during that time throwing more INTs than TDs was not abnormal and did not disqualify you form being elite. This is the 1950s. Again you have zero context for what you're spouting off here. So if Bobby Layne makes the top 10, what are you going to say then? I mean the voters already have him as a finalist despite his supposed bad play.

I was honestly just trying to be nice by saying your post was useful. Do you think I came up with a list of players I thought would make the list without looking at their stats and accomplishments?

• 3× NFL champion (1952, 1953, 1957)
• 6× Pro Bowl (1951–1953, 1956, 1958, 1959)
• 3× First-team All-Pro (1952, 1956, 1958)
• 4× Second-team All-Pro (1952–1954, 1959)
• 2× NFL passing yards leader (1950, 1951)
• NFL passing touchdowns leader (1951)
• NFL 1950s All-Decade Team

All this proves, considering Layne is a finalist and might make the top 10, is that you are looking in the wrong areas to evaluate QBs for this list. It's about accomplishments. You are treating it like an draft profile.

Click to expand...

You had Layne in your top ten without knowing he threw more INTs than TDs. I'm pretty sure I have a decent understanding for the peaks/lows, standards for each decade. Again considering I pointed that out to you.
Who some panel selects makes no difference imo. I'll make up my own mind. Of course I'll respect it. I don't need to get my opinions from anyone. Say what you want abt me but I don't copy/paste my opinion from Twitter or look to anyone to tell me what to think.