Is Tom Brady the best QB ever?

[GTripp0012]

Let's just say I have very strong opinions on this one.

Before this year, you would have been off your rocker if you thought you could even mention Brady with the likes of the all-time greats. Before this year, he hadn't really seperated himself from the Palmer's, Brees', Bulger's, or Hasselbeck's of the world despite playing on some historically great teams, and winning multiple super bowls. It was a joke after the super bowl last year to even compare him to Peyton Manning.

One year later, he's definately got to be in the discussion.

I would say that in terms of great quarterback years, Brady's 2007 ranks third to only Steve Young's 1994, and Dan Marino's 1984 in terms of greatest year ever by a quarterback, and is pretty close to tied with Manning's 2004. (He broke the historic tenth year trend!)

Right now, Brady has yet to prove that 2007 was any more than an uncharacteristically great year for a pretty good quarterback. If he can replicate his numbers this year through the 2008 and 2009 seasons, then I think he should get some serious pull for best quarterback ever.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Before this year, you would have been off your rocker if you thought you could even mention Brady with the likes of the all-time greats. Before this year, he hadn't really seperated himself from the Palmer's, Brees', Bulger's, or Hasselbeck's of the world despite playing on some historically great teams, and winning multiple super bowls. It was a joke after the super bowl last year to even compare him to Peyton Manning.

This statement is garbage GTripp.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

This statement is garbage GTripp.

Actually, it's pretty darn factual.

Last year I asked you to find one season where Brady was even comprable to Manning. Couldn't be done.

Now it can. Now we have two sides to this debate.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Actually, it's pretty darn factual.

Last year I asked you to find one season where Brady was even comprable to Manning. Couldn't be done.

Now it can. Now we have two sides to this debate.

Peyton Mannings regular season heroics and gaudy stats was all you had to offer. Last year you gained ground because Manning went all the way finally and that happened after the fact by the way. This year it's clear Brady has pulled away again while Manning is back to his old ways of playoff futility. Great Quarterbacks Win in the Postseason. Manning's playoff record is so very average.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

Peyton Mannings regular season heroics and gaudy stats was all you had to offer. Last year you gained ground because Manning went all the way finally and that happened after the fact by the way. This year it's clear Brady has pulled away again while Manning is back to his old ways of playoff futility. Great Quarterbacks Win in the Postseason. Manning's playoff record is so very average.

I told you this last year, but this is a bad way of looking at it and will lead you astray in your analysis. Period.

You want to say that Brady is the best ever conclusively, and you are going to say as many ridiculous things as you need to to support this argument.

We already did the whole Manning v. Brady thing to no avail. Can you make any arguments that Brady is better than Favre? Marino? Montana or Young? Can you do it without blanket statements like "great quarterbacks win in the postseason" which is:

1) Absoultely vital to your argument
2) Something you have assumed and have not done one thing to prove (what about the great quarterbacks who sometimes lose in the postseason for reasons beyond their control? Why should they be invalidated?)

I'll be around.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

We already did the whole Manning v. Brady thing to no avail. Can you make any arguments that Brady is better than Favre? Marino? Montana or Young? Can you do it without blanket statements like "great quarterbacks win in the postseason" which is:

1) Absoultely vital to your argument
2) Something you have assumed and have not done one thing to prove

I'll be around.

Oh don't worry. I knew great quarterbacks win in the postseason had no merit with you. 1) Yes winning championships is vital to my argument.
2) Winning champioships is the ultimate goal in sports. True or not. If it is the most important thing there is and I use it as an argument does that make me wrong?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

Oh don't worry. I knew great quarterbacks win in the postseason had no merit with you. 1) Yes winning championships is vital to my argument.
2) Winning champioships is the ultimate goal in sports. True or not. If it is the most important thing there is and I use it as an argument does that make me wrong?

Okay, I will give you this. Winning championships are the ultimate goal in sports. I agree. Brady has accomplished this three times, which is a great career, and he's still playing.

Now. Let's expound on this idea. If the ultimate goal is to win championships, as a team, then can we conclusively say that the quarterback who is on the team who wins the most championships is conclusively the best?

If the goal in the world of business is to make money, and the C.E.O. has the most critical role in making money for his business, then can it be said (absolutely conclusively) that whichever company is the most profitable has the best C.E.O.?

Why not? Because the C.E.O. is not directly responsible for many of the things that go into great business. Maybe he had great advisors, or a great business plan he stole (videotaped? too soon?) from another unit. Or maybe it was just the circumstance of the situation and he was simply in a really, really favorable market.

You don't know. Therefore, you can not conclusively say that the best C.E.O. in the world is the one who has the most profitable company. You can't say "there are millions of factors that go into determining profitability, but the only one that counts is who our C.E.O. is."

And you can not say that Brady is the best QB in the NFL simply because his team accomplished the ultimate goal. You can use it in your argument, but by itself is simply a terrible application of cause and effect. To my knowledge, that IS your argument, as you haven't bothered to dig any deeper.

I don't know who the C.E.O. of Google is, but I can only assume that he is the best executive officer in business? Does this make sense?

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Let's just say I have very strong opinions on this one.

Before this year, you would have been off your rocker if you thought you could even mention Brady with the likes of the all-time greats. Before this year, he hadn't really seperated himself from the Palmer's, Brees', Bulger's, or Hasselbeck's of the world despite playing on some historically great teams, and winning multiple super bowls. It was a joke after the super bowl last year to even compare him to Peyton Manning.

One year later, he's definately got to be in the discussion.

I would say that in terms of great quarterback years, Brady's 2007 ranks third to only Steve Young's 1994, and Dan Marino's 1984 in terms of greatest year ever by a quarterback, and is pretty close to tied with Manning's 2004. (He broke the historic tenth year trend!)

Right now, Brady has yet to prove that 2007 was any more than an uncharacteristically great year for a pretty good quarterback. If he can replicate his numbers this year through the 2008 and 2009 seasons, then I think he should get some serious pull for best quarterback ever.

A pretty good QB????? Huh??? Sorry but when a guy QB's 3 winning SB's and it could very well be a 4th, and he's the single biggest reason why they won those 3 SB's, I would call him a great QB. Throw out the statistical stuff. He's never had a great running back and never had a great wr until now and he still QB'd 3 winning SB's. Sometimes you can just look at a guy, and if you take him off the team they are probably not nearly as good. Troy Aikman is a prime example. Not a great stat qb but we all know he was a great QB. Same with Elway.

I would seperate him from all of those other guys because he's done it in the playoffs and SB's when it's counts the most. 3 TIMES. End of discussion.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

A pretty good QB????? Huh??? Sorry but when a guy QB's 3 winning SB's and it could very well be a 4th, and he's the single biggest reason why they won those 3 SB's, I would call him a great QB. Throw out the statistical stuff. He's never had a great running back and never had a great wr until now and he still QB'd 3 winning SB's. Sometimes you can just look at a guy, and if you take him off the team they are probably not nearly as good. Troy Aikman is a prime example. Not a great stat qb but we all know he was a great QB. Same with Elway.

I would seperate him from all of those other guys because he's done it in the playoffs and SB's when it's counts the most. 3 TIMES. End of discussion.

Fine great, whatever. Pretty good in the sense I used it was not trying to say "less than great" but rather generalize his talent level with all of the other really good quarterbacks. Totally unscientifically.

You know me well enough to know that if I want to say "player x is better than player y", I'll give numerical values so you know exactly how much better "x" is than "y". I won't rely on the ability for one to order "pretty good", "good", "great", and "kinda great" in terms of ability.

When you see a quarterback with a great media rep without the numbers to back it up, that's not a "great QB". It's definately not an indictment of the numbers. That's called "overrated".

Taking a guy off a roster is a good litmus test to try to tell just how good he is, but it doesn't matter if one doesn't do it properly. Take Brady off the Patriots from 03-06, replace him with Jon Kitna, and they still make the playoffs every year. They don't go as far in the playoffs, because obviously their offense isn't nearly as good, but they still win that division.

Take Brady off the Pats 03-06, replace him with Manning, and they still likely win two SBs in those 4 years. That's just common sense.

Clearly, it is impossible to overrate Brady's 2007 season. It was historically great. I'm just wondering why people couldn't wait until he had a season like this before they jumped the gun and called him the best ever.