Tom Brady- The next Joe Montana?

[SandSquid]

Packers needed to beat out 13 other teams to win the championship
You went through a 14 game seaso and went right to the championship

Now, you have to beat out 31 other teams and win at least three playoff games

And you have 8 playoff spots to qualify as opposed to 2. The entire season was a playoff sequence.

That is true. Imagine if all you needed was the best record in the Conference? OI think both of those have a flip side, but just numerically, finishing on top of a 10-16 team league is much easier than finishing on top of a 32 team league.

Not when you need only to finish fourth.

In a 16 team league, making the Championship is the same as having a top 2 record in the AFC. (top 2 teams in a 16 team league by record with the 60's Packers winning some with a 14 team league... or bye week in the 16 team AFC playoffs). 12 times the Patriots have done that under Brady.

Now instead of that top 2 record getting them an automatic ticket to the championship game, it gets them a bye week where they have to win 2 more playoff games. All your dominance all year for your record resets... twice, to sniff the SB.

So the equivalent of 12 Championship game appearances that they would have in a 16 team league. If you don't want to round for the packers favor, you can take out two teams for the 14 team league the Packers 60's dynasty started in, and you'd have an expected rate of 13.7 championship game appearances.

There are currently 12 teams that make the playoffs out of 32 teams. That would mean it’s 3 times easier to make the playoffs than it was in 1966.
1967 divided the league into 4 divisions so 4 teams of 16 made the post-season. That still would equate to only 8 teams now as opposed to 12.
The current 16-game season allows for a greater chance to make up for earlier losses. Combined, it’s much easier now to make the post-season than in Starr’s era.
The rules changes that currently protect QBs now also allow for longer careers.

So what you are saying is that instead of 6 playoff teams in the AFC, back then it would have been the equivalent of 4 (4 of top 16).

The problem with that, is that Brady has not once played a road wild card game (5/6 seed position). So not once has he been able to take advantage of slipping in the playoffs with one of those lower seeds. Instead, where Starr as a 4 seed would be able to get a pass in the wild card, and go on to face the 1 seed in the divisional week post-1966, Brady as a 4 seed would have to play and win a wild card game to advance to that point. Or Pre-1966 where Starr as a top 2 seed could automatically make the championship, Brady as a top 2 seed had to win two postseason games to get there.

Remember, Brady won 78% of his starts. Starr won 60% of his. Brady would not have a harder time making the post-season in Starr's era. He'd just have a lot easier run to the championship game once he was there.

For his first 10 years, Starr was able to make the playoffs being one of the top 2-3 teams in the NFL of 14 teams. One year it was tougher (1966), and after that it was back to easier (3 and 4 seeds didn't have to win a wild card game to make it to divisional round, they automatically advanced).

And while the current 16 game season gives you a better chance to make up for losses, it also puts less emphasis on individual wins as well. For example the 2007 NYG might beat the pats in a 1 game series, but if you turn that into a best of 5, does it become easier or harder?

So while it's easier for teams overall to make the post-season, it's harder for the top teams to advance in the post-season. Which is why Starr only had to win 9 games for 5 championships. and Brady had to win 18 for his 6.


Brady's not getting the benefit of that 5/6 seed, but rather having to face them to advance to the spot where Starr's teams automatically got.





Lastly I do agree that rules changes help QB's. The Packers starting D-line averaged 245 lbs when Starr came into the league. They averaged 307 lbs last year. The NFL had to do something as those players not only became bigger, but stronger and faster. And QB's are no longer throwing 15-20 times a game, but 25-35.


I fully agree a player can extend their career and their prime today. That has to do with those rule changes, medical advances (Brady's 08 ACL might have been a career ender 40 years earlier), but also players diets and off-season regimens.

And then you can get into outplaying your peers. Besides Brady setting his team in a top 2 seed out of 16 teams more often than Starr did with 16 or 14, his play has been more consistent.

Every year Brady's QB rating has been at least 10% higher than the league average. Starr's wasn't for 5 years, nearly 1/3 of his career.

Every year Brady's INT and TD rates have been better than lg avg every year but one. 9 times that's happened for Starr.

Starr won one MVP in a league with half the players as Brady, and Brady's won 3.

besides coming out on top on efficiency numbers vs. his peers, Brady has led the league in yards or TD's for volume numbers 5 times. Starr.... zero.

So not only is he making the post-season (even by those older standards) more often than Starr, he's outplaying his peers moreso than Starr in both efficiency and volume..


Like I said, it is difficult comparing across era's.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

And you have 8 playoff spots to qualify as opposed to 2. The entire season was a playoff sequence.

That is true. Imagine if all you needed was the best record in the Conference? OI think both of those have a flip side, but just numerically, finishing on top of a 10-16 team league is much easier than finishing on top of a 32 team league.

Not when you need only to finish fourth.

In a 16 team league, making the Championship is the same as having a top 2 record in the AFC. (top 2 teams in a 16 team league by record with the 60's Packers winning some with a 14 team league... or bye week in the 16 team AFC playoffs). 12 times the Patriots have done that under Brady.

Now instead of that top 2 record getting them an automatic ticket to the championship game, it gets them a bye week where they have to win 2 more playoff games. All your dominance all year for your record resets... twice, to sniff the SB.

So the equivalent of 12 Championship game appearances that they would have in a 16 team league. If you don't want to round for the packers favor, you can take out two teams for the 14 team league the Packers 60's dynasty started in, and you'd have an expected rate of 13.7 championship game appearances.

There are currently 12 teams that make the playoffs out of 32 teams. That would mean it’s 3 times easier to make the playoffs than it was in 1966.
1967 divided the league into 4 divisions so 4 teams of 16 made the post-season. That still would equate to only 8 teams now as opposed to 12.
The current 16-game season allows for a greater chance to make up for earlier losses. Combined, it’s much easier now to make the post-season than in Starr’s era.
The rules changes that currently protect QBs now also allow for longer careers.

So what you are saying is that instead of 6 playoff teams in the AFC, back then it would have been the equivalent of 4 (4 of top 16).

The problem with that, is that Brady has not once played a road wild card game (5/6 seed position). So not once has he been able to take advantage of slipping in the playoffs with one of those lower seeds. Instead, where Starr as a 4 seed would be able to get a pass in the wild card, and go on to face the 1 seed in the divisional week post-1966, Brady as a 4 seed would have to play and win a wild card game to advance to that point. Or Pre-1966 where Starr as a top 2 seed could automatically make the championship, Brady as a top 2 seed had to win two postseason games to get there.

Remember, Brady won 78% of his starts. Starr won 60% of his. Brady would not have a harder time making the post-season in Starr's era. He'd just have a lot easier run to the championship game once he was there.

For his first 10 years, Starr was able to make the playoffs being one of the top 2-3 teams in the NFL of 14 teams. One year it was tougher (1966), and after that it was back to easier (3 and 4 seeds didn't have to win a wild card game to make it to divisional round, they automatically advanced).

And while the current 16 game season gives you a better chance to make up for losses, it also puts less emphasis on individual wins as well. For example the 2007 NYG might beat the pats in a 1 game series, but if you turn that into a best of 5, does it become easier or harder?

So while it's easier for teams overall to make the post-season, it's harder for the top teams to advance in the post-season. Which is why Starr only had to win 9 games for 5 championships. and Brady had to win 18 for his 6.


Brady's not getting the benefit of that 5/6 seed, but rather having to face them to advance to the spot where Starr's teams automatically got.





Lastly I do agree that rules changes help QB's. The Packers starting D-line averaged 245 lbs when Starr came into the league. They averaged 307 lbs last year. The NFL had to do something as those players not only became bigger, but stronger and faster. And QB's are no longer throwing 15-20 times a game, but 25-35.


I fully agree a player can extend their career and their prime today. That has to do with those rule changes, medical advances (Brady's 08 ACL might have been a career ender 40 years earlier), but also players diets and off-season regimens.

And then you can get into outplaying your peers. Besides Brady setting his team in a top 2 seed out of 16 teams more often than Starr did with 16 or 14, his play has been more consistent.

Every year Brady's QB rating has been at least 10% higher than the league average. Starr's wasn't for 5 years, nearly 1/3 of his career.

Every year Brady's INT and TD rates have been better than lg avg every year but one. 9 times that's happened for Starr.

Starr won one MVP in a league with half the players as Brady, and Brady's won 3.

besides coming out on top on efficiency numbers vs. his peers, Brady has led the league in yards or TD's for volume numbers 5 times. Starr.... zero.

So not only is he making the post-season (even by those older standards) more often than Starr, he's outplaying his peers moreso than Starr in both efficiency and volume..


Like I said, it is difficult comparing across era's.

That’s an extremely convoluted way to try to deny simple math and probability.
Again, the rules changes made it possible for Brady to play long enough to accrue those championships. That makes Starr’s feat more significant.
The bottom line, however, is winning the LOS. That makes the QB secondary. GB teams had better interior linemen.
RIP Forrest Gregg...

Packers great Forrest Gregg, 'finest player' Vince Lombardi coached, dies at 85

 

[rightwinger]

Greatest Football Dynasties of my lifetime

NE Patriots
SF 49ers
Dallas Cowboys
Pittsburg Steelers
GB Packers

 

[SandSquid]

That is true. Imagine if all you needed was the best record in the Conference? OI think both of those have a flip side, but just numerically, finishing on top of a 10-16 team league is much easier than finishing on top of a 32 team league.

Not when you need only to finish fourth.

In a 16 team league, making the Championship is the same as having a top 2 record in the AFC. (top 2 teams in a 16 team league by record with the 60's Packers winning some with a 14 team league... or bye week in the 16 team AFC playoffs). 12 times the Patriots have done that under Brady.

Now instead of that top 2 record getting them an automatic ticket to the championship game, it gets them a bye week where they have to win 2 more playoff games. All your dominance all year for your record resets... twice, to sniff the SB.

So the equivalent of 12 Championship game appearances that they would have in a 16 team league. If you don't want to round for the packers favor, you can take out two teams for the 14 team league the Packers 60's dynasty started in, and you'd have an expected rate of 13.7 championship game appearances.

There are currently 12 teams that make the playoffs out of 32 teams. That would mean it’s 3 times easier to make the playoffs than it was in 1966.
1967 divided the league into 4 divisions so 4 teams of 16 made the post-season. That still would equate to only 8 teams now as opposed to 12.
The current 16-game season allows for a greater chance to make up for earlier losses. Combined, it’s much easier now to make the post-season than in Starr’s era.
The rules changes that currently protect QBs now also allow for longer careers.

So what you are saying is that instead of 6 playoff teams in the AFC, back then it would have been the equivalent of 4 (4 of top 16).

The problem with that, is that Brady has not once played a road wild card game (5/6 seed position). So not once has he been able to take advantage of slipping in the playoffs with one of those lower seeds. Instead, where Starr as a 4 seed would be able to get a pass in the wild card, and go on to face the 1 seed in the divisional week post-1966, Brady as a 4 seed would have to play and win a wild card game to advance to that point. Or Pre-1966 where Starr as a top 2 seed could automatically make the championship, Brady as a top 2 seed had to win two postseason games to get there.

Remember, Brady won 78% of his starts. Starr won 60% of his. Brady would not have a harder time making the post-season in Starr's era. He'd just have a lot easier run to the championship game once he was there.

For his first 10 years, Starr was able to make the playoffs being one of the top 2-3 teams in the NFL of 14 teams. One year it was tougher (1966), and after that it was back to easier (3 and 4 seeds didn't have to win a wild card game to make it to divisional round, they automatically advanced).

And while the current 16 game season gives you a better chance to make up for losses, it also puts less emphasis on individual wins as well. For example the 2007 NYG might beat the pats in a 1 game series, but if you turn that into a best of 5, does it become easier or harder?

So while it's easier for teams overall to make the post-season, it's harder for the top teams to advance in the post-season. Which is why Starr only had to win 9 games for 5 championships. and Brady had to win 18 for his 6.


Brady's not getting the benefit of that 5/6 seed, but rather having to face them to advance to the spot where Starr's teams automatically got.





Lastly I do agree that rules changes help QB's. The Packers starting D-line averaged 245 lbs when Starr came into the league. They averaged 307 lbs last year. The NFL had to do something as those players not only became bigger, but stronger and faster. And QB's are no longer throwing 15-20 times a game, but 25-35.


I fully agree a player can extend their career and their prime today. That has to do with those rule changes, medical advances (Brady's 08 ACL might have been a career ender 40 years earlier), but also players diets and off-season regimens.

And then you can get into outplaying your peers. Besides Brady setting his team in a top 2 seed out of 16 teams more often than Starr did with 16 or 14, his play has been more consistent.

Every year Brady's QB rating has been at least 10% higher than the league average. Starr's wasn't for 5 years, nearly 1/3 of his career.

Every year Brady's INT and TD rates have been better than lg avg every year but one. 9 times that's happened for Starr.

Starr won one MVP in a league with half the players as Brady, and Brady's won 3.

besides coming out on top on efficiency numbers vs. his peers, Brady has led the league in yards or TD's for volume numbers 5 times. Starr.... zero.

So not only is he making the post-season (even by those older standards) more often than Starr, he's outplaying his peers moreso than Starr in both efficiency and volume..


Like I said, it is difficult comparing across era's.

That’s an extremely convoluted way to try to deny simple math and probability.
Again, the rules changes made it possible for Brady to play long enough to accrue those championships. That makes Starr’s feat more significant.
The bottom line, however, is winning the LOS. That makes the QB secondary. GB teams had better interior linemen.
RIP Forrest Gregg...

Packers great Forrest Gregg, 'finest player' Vince Lombardi coached, dies at 85

Well the simple math says that Brady in that era would have been in more championship games than he has because the road for a top two reg season team to a championship game today is much tougher. The probability for much of Starr's career for his top two team to make the championship game in the postseason was 100%. Now that means two wins. Remember Bart Starr had to get through 4 teams in the playoffs to play in his 6 championship games. Brady had to beat 12. And Brady had to throw it. There was no run the ball 46 times and complete 10 passes in today's NFL.

And while winning the line of scrimmage has always been key, we have seen more and more that great QB play is the constant to winning with any consistency. There is no elite playing QB with a losing record for his career. There are plenty at other positions. There is no Joe Thomas of QBs. We've seen lines that QBs have dominated behind look putrid the moment the QB changes or vice versa (See colts and broncos with and without manning, or pats with Cassel, or Marino teams).

Like you say, Forrest Gregg and those guys were the heart. Matt light and Seymour were excellent players but Trent Brown was a 1 year low cost rental. Nate solder was ok but not great. Their entire d line has changed between their last two SB wins. Nobody's going to say "Logan mankins was the finest player Belichcik coached"

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Not when you need only to finish fourth.

In a 16 team league, making the Championship is the same as having a top 2 record in the AFC. (top 2 teams in a 16 team league by record with the 60's Packers winning some with a 14 team league... or bye week in the 16 team AFC playoffs). 12 times the Patriots have done that under Brady.

Now instead of that top 2 record getting them an automatic ticket to the championship game, it gets them a bye week where they have to win 2 more playoff games. All your dominance all year for your record resets... twice, to sniff the SB.

So the equivalent of 12 Championship game appearances that they would have in a 16 team league. If you don't want to round for the packers favor, you can take out two teams for the 14 team league the Packers 60's dynasty started in, and you'd have an expected rate of 13.7 championship game appearances.

There are currently 12 teams that make the playoffs out of 32 teams. That would mean it’s 3 times easier to make the playoffs than it was in 1966.
1967 divided the league into 4 divisions so 4 teams of 16 made the post-season. That still would equate to only 8 teams now as opposed to 12.
The current 16-game season allows for a greater chance to make up for earlier losses. Combined, it’s much easier now to make the post-season than in Starr’s era.
The rules changes that currently protect QBs now also allow for longer careers.

So what you are saying is that instead of 6 playoff teams in the AFC, back then it would have been the equivalent of 4 (4 of top 16).

The problem with that, is that Brady has not once played a road wild card game (5/6 seed position). So not once has he been able to take advantage of slipping in the playoffs with one of those lower seeds. Instead, where Starr as a 4 seed would be able to get a pass in the wild card, and go on to face the 1 seed in the divisional week post-1966, Brady as a 4 seed would have to play and win a wild card game to advance to that point. Or Pre-1966 where Starr as a top 2 seed could automatically make the championship, Brady as a top 2 seed had to win two postseason games to get there.

Remember, Brady won 78% of his starts. Starr won 60% of his. Brady would not have a harder time making the post-season in Starr's era. He'd just have a lot easier run to the championship game once he was there.

For his first 10 years, Starr was able to make the playoffs being one of the top 2-3 teams in the NFL of 14 teams. One year it was tougher (1966), and after that it was back to easier (3 and 4 seeds didn't have to win a wild card game to make it to divisional round, they automatically advanced).

And while the current 16 game season gives you a better chance to make up for losses, it also puts less emphasis on individual wins as well. For example the 2007 NYG might beat the pats in a 1 game series, but if you turn that into a best of 5, does it become easier or harder?

So while it's easier for teams overall to make the post-season, it's harder for the top teams to advance in the post-season. Which is why Starr only had to win 9 games for 5 championships. and Brady had to win 18 for his 6.


Brady's not getting the benefit of that 5/6 seed, but rather having to face them to advance to the spot where Starr's teams automatically got.





Lastly I do agree that rules changes help QB's. The Packers starting D-line averaged 245 lbs when Starr came into the league. They averaged 307 lbs last year. The NFL had to do something as those players not only became bigger, but stronger and faster. And QB's are no longer throwing 15-20 times a game, but 25-35.


I fully agree a player can extend their career and their prime today. That has to do with those rule changes, medical advances (Brady's 08 ACL might have been a career ender 40 years earlier), but also players diets and off-season regimens.

And then you can get into outplaying your peers. Besides Brady setting his team in a top 2 seed out of 16 teams more often than Starr did with 16 or 14, his play has been more consistent.

Every year Brady's QB rating has been at least 10% higher than the league average. Starr's wasn't for 5 years, nearly 1/3 of his career.

Every year Brady's INT and TD rates have been better than lg avg every year but one. 9 times that's happened for Starr.

Starr won one MVP in a league with half the players as Brady, and Brady's won 3.

besides coming out on top on efficiency numbers vs. his peers, Brady has led the league in yards or TD's for volume numbers 5 times. Starr.... zero.

So not only is he making the post-season (even by those older standards) more often than Starr, he's outplaying his peers moreso than Starr in both efficiency and volume..


Like I said, it is difficult comparing across era's.

That’s an extremely convoluted way to try to deny simple math and probability.
Again, the rules changes made it possible for Brady to play long enough to accrue those championships. That makes Starr’s feat more significant.
The bottom line, however, is winning the LOS. That makes the QB secondary. GB teams had better interior linemen.
RIP Forrest Gregg...

Packers great Forrest Gregg, 'finest player' Vince Lombardi coached, dies at 85

Well the simple math says that Brady in that era would have been in more championship games than he has because the road for a top two reg season team to a championship game today is much tougher. The probability for much of Starr's career for his top two team to make the championship game in the postseason was 100%. Now that means two wins.

And while winning the line of scrimmage has always been key, we have seen more and more that great QB play is the constant to winning with any consistency. There is no elite playing QB with a losing record. There are plenty at other positions. If winning the LOS was as important as QB play, Joe Thomas would have rings.. we've seen lines that QBs have dominated behind look putrid the moment the QB changes or vice versa (See colts and broncos with and without manning, or pats with Cassel, or Marino teams).

Skill positions are icing on the cake. Football is always won at the LOS. It’s like rebounding in basketball. Not glamorous but paramount.
Brady would not have lasted long enough to accrue his championships had he played in Starr’s era. Simple fact.
There is unfortunately little discussion to that effect because the NFL erases most of its legacy prior to 1966 (a TV thing). It’s a marketing thing. Their clientele isn’t too interested in history and the NFL likes it that way. Kinda like if MLB downplayed Williams and Ruth and Gehrig and Feller and Fox, etc.

 

[SandSquid]

In a 16 team league, making the Championship is the same as having a top 2 record in the AFC. (top 2 teams in a 16 team league by record with the 60's Packers winning some with a 14 team league... or bye week in the 16 team AFC playoffs). 12 times the Patriots have done that under Brady.

Now instead of that top 2 record getting them an automatic ticket to the championship game, it gets them a bye week where they have to win 2 more playoff games. All your dominance all year for your record resets... twice, to sniff the SB.

So the equivalent of 12 Championship game appearances that they would have in a 16 team league. If you don't want to round for the packers favor, you can take out two teams for the 14 team league the Packers 60's dynasty started in, and you'd have an expected rate of 13.7 championship game appearances.

There are currently 12 teams that make the playoffs out of 32 teams. That would mean it’s 3 times easier to make the playoffs than it was in 1966.
1967 divided the league into 4 divisions so 4 teams of 16 made the post-season. That still would equate to only 8 teams now as opposed to 12.
The current 16-game season allows for a greater chance to make up for earlier losses. Combined, it’s much easier now to make the post-season than in Starr’s era.
The rules changes that currently protect QBs now also allow for longer careers.

So what you are saying is that instead of 6 playoff teams in the AFC, back then it would have been the equivalent of 4 (4 of top 16).

The problem with that, is that Brady has not once played a road wild card game (5/6 seed position). So not once has he been able to take advantage of slipping in the playoffs with one of those lower seeds. Instead, where Starr as a 4 seed would be able to get a pass in the wild card, and go on to face the 1 seed in the divisional week post-1966, Brady as a 4 seed would have to play and win a wild card game to advance to that point. Or Pre-1966 where Starr as a top 2 seed could automatically make the championship, Brady as a top 2 seed had to win two postseason games to get there.

Remember, Brady won 78% of his starts. Starr won 60% of his. Brady would not have a harder time making the post-season in Starr's era. He'd just have a lot easier run to the championship game once he was there.

For his first 10 years, Starr was able to make the playoffs being one of the top 2-3 teams in the NFL of 14 teams. One year it was tougher (1966), and after that it was back to easier (3 and 4 seeds didn't have to win a wild card game to make it to divisional round, they automatically advanced).

And while the current 16 game season gives you a better chance to make up for losses, it also puts less emphasis on individual wins as well. For example the 2007 NYG might beat the pats in a 1 game series, but if you turn that into a best of 5, does it become easier or harder?

So while it's easier for teams overall to make the post-season, it's harder for the top teams to advance in the post-season. Which is why Starr only had to win 9 games for 5 championships. and Brady had to win 18 for his 6.


Brady's not getting the benefit of that 5/6 seed, but rather having to face them to advance to the spot where Starr's teams automatically got.





Lastly I do agree that rules changes help QB's. The Packers starting D-line averaged 245 lbs when Starr came into the league. They averaged 307 lbs last year. The NFL had to do something as those players not only became bigger, but stronger and faster. And QB's are no longer throwing 15-20 times a game, but 25-35.


I fully agree a player can extend their career and their prime today. That has to do with those rule changes, medical advances (Brady's 08 ACL might have been a career ender 40 years earlier), but also players diets and off-season regimens.

And then you can get into outplaying your peers. Besides Brady setting his team in a top 2 seed out of 16 teams more often than Starr did with 16 or 14, his play has been more consistent.

Every year Brady's QB rating has been at least 10% higher than the league average. Starr's wasn't for 5 years, nearly 1/3 of his career.

Every year Brady's INT and TD rates have been better than lg avg every year but one. 9 times that's happened for Starr.

Starr won one MVP in a league with half the players as Brady, and Brady's won 3.

besides coming out on top on efficiency numbers vs. his peers, Brady has led the league in yards or TD's for volume numbers 5 times. Starr.... zero.

So not only is he making the post-season (even by those older standards) more often than Starr, he's outplaying his peers moreso than Starr in both efficiency and volume..


Like I said, it is difficult comparing across era's.

That’s an extremely convoluted way to try to deny simple math and probability.
Again, the rules changes made it possible for Brady to play long enough to accrue those championships. That makes Starr’s feat more significant.
The bottom line, however, is winning the LOS. That makes the QB secondary. GB teams had better interior linemen.
RIP Forrest Gregg...

Packers great Forrest Gregg, 'finest player' Vince Lombardi coached, dies at 85

Well the simple math says that Brady in that era would have been in more championship games than he has because the road for a top two reg season team to a championship game today is much tougher. The probability for much of Starr's career for his top two team to make the championship game in the postseason was 100%. Now that means two wins.

And while winning the line of scrimmage has always been key, we have seen more and more that great QB play is the constant to winning with any consistency. There is no elite playing QB with a losing record. There are plenty at other positions. If winning the LOS was as important as QB play, Joe Thomas would have rings.. we've seen lines that QBs have dominated behind look putrid the moment the QB changes or vice versa (See colts and broncos with and without manning, or pats with Cassel, or Marino teams).

Skill positions are icing on the cake. Football is always won at the LOS. It’s like rebounding in basketball. Not glamorous but paramount.
Brady would not have lasted long enough to accrue his championships had he played in Starr’s era. Simple fact.
There is unfortunately little discussion to that effect because the NFL erases most of its legacy prior to 1966 (a TV thing). It’s a marketing thing. Their clientele isn’t too interested in history and the NFL likes it that way. Kinda like if MLB downplayed Williams and Ruth and Gehrig and Feller and Fox, etc.

And that's neat that some people think that. While having a rebounder like Dennis rodman was a huge help to the bulls, they weren't winning without Michael Jordan.

And you can have the best left tackle of an era, and the worst record of that same era.

But there is no Peyton Brady Rogers brees qb with a horrible record. And yet all of those guys have won despite their lines changing over multiple times. And for many of them the second which they stepped away we instantly had some of the biggest drops in offensive performance in league history.

The reason NFL GM's are willing to overpay and overdraft quarterbacks as you can't win with consistency without one.

Look at the top 7 teams of the past 15 years. it's no coincidence that their quarterbacks are Brady, Peyton, Rodgers, Brees, Ben, Wilson, and Romo/Dak

Look at the bottom 7 . Couch, Russell, Bradford, Bortles, Simms, Manuel and a slew of other inconsistent guys at QB.

Richard Seymour didn't go from being a perennial super bowl contender to a perennial basement player because he still wasn't good. He had a couple great years in Oakland.. but he no longer had Tom Brady

Tony Ugoh may have been the blind side tackle for the best pass blocking line in the league.. and immediately couldn't find or keep a job. Because he no longer had Peyton Manning.

It isn't down playing past guards or current centers to say that the NBA has changed and the value of those positions have as well.

 

[SandSquid]

In a 16 team league, making the Championship is the same as having a top 2 record in the AFC. (top 2 teams in a 16 team league by record with the 60's Packers winning some with a 14 team league... or bye week in the 16 team AFC playoffs). 12 times the Patriots have done that under Brady.

Now instead of that top 2 record getting them an automatic ticket to the championship game, it gets them a bye week where they have to win 2 more playoff games. All your dominance all year for your record resets... twice, to sniff the SB.

So the equivalent of 12 Championship game appearances that they would have in a 16 team league. If you don't want to round for the packers favor, you can take out two teams for the 14 team league the Packers 60's dynasty started in, and you'd have an expected rate of 13.7 championship game appearances.

There are currently 12 teams that make the playoffs out of 32 teams. That would mean it’s 3 times easier to make the playoffs than it was in 1966.
1967 divided the league into 4 divisions so 4 teams of 16 made the post-season. That still would equate to only 8 teams now as opposed to 12.
The current 16-game season allows for a greater chance to make up for earlier losses. Combined, it’s much easier now to make the post-season than in Starr’s era.
The rules changes that currently protect QBs now also allow for longer careers.

So what you are saying is that instead of 6 playoff teams in the AFC, back then it would have been the equivalent of 4 (4 of top 16).

The problem with that, is that Brady has not once played a road wild card game (5/6 seed position). So not once has he been able to take advantage of slipping in the playoffs with one of those lower seeds. Instead, where Starr as a 4 seed would be able to get a pass in the wild card, and go on to face the 1 seed in the divisional week post-1966, Brady as a 4 seed would have to play and win a wild card game to advance to that point. Or Pre-1966 where Starr as a top 2 seed could automatically make the championship, Brady as a top 2 seed had to win two postseason games to get there.

Remember, Brady won 78% of his starts. Starr won 60% of his. Brady would not have a harder time making the post-season in Starr's era. He'd just have a lot easier run to the championship game once he was there.

For his first 10 years, Starr was able to make the playoffs being one of the top 2-3 teams in the NFL of 14 teams. One year it was tougher (1966), and after that it was back to easier (3 and 4 seeds didn't have to win a wild card game to make it to divisional round, they automatically advanced).

And while the current 16 game season gives you a better chance to make up for losses, it also puts less emphasis on individual wins as well. For example the 2007 NYG might beat the pats in a 1 game series, but if you turn that into a best of 5, does it become easier or harder?

So while it's easier for teams overall to make the post-season, it's harder for the top teams to advance in the post-season. Which is why Starr only had to win 9 games for 5 championships. and Brady had to win 18 for his 6.


Brady's not getting the benefit of that 5/6 seed, but rather having to face them to advance to the spot where Starr's teams automatically got.





Lastly I do agree that rules changes help QB's. The Packers starting D-line averaged 245 lbs when Starr came into the league. They averaged 307 lbs last year. The NFL had to do something as those players not only became bigger, but stronger and faster. And QB's are no longer throwing 15-20 times a game, but 25-35.


I fully agree a player can extend their career and their prime today. That has to do with those rule changes, medical advances (Brady's 08 ACL might have been a career ender 40 years earlier), but also players diets and off-season regimens.

And then you can get into outplaying your peers. Besides Brady setting his team in a top 2 seed out of 16 teams more often than Starr did with 16 or 14, his play has been more consistent.

Every year Brady's QB rating has been at least 10% higher than the league average. Starr's wasn't for 5 years, nearly 1/3 of his career.

Every year Brady's INT and TD rates have been better than lg avg every year but one. 9 times that's happened for Starr.

Starr won one MVP in a league with half the players as Brady, and Brady's won 3.

besides coming out on top on efficiency numbers vs. his peers, Brady has led the league in yards or TD's for volume numbers 5 times. Starr.... zero.

So not only is he making the post-season (even by those older standards) more often than Starr, he's outplaying his peers moreso than Starr in both efficiency and volume..


Like I said, it is difficult comparing across era's.

That’s an extremely convoluted way to try to deny simple math and probability.
Again, the rules changes made it possible for Brady to play long enough to accrue those championships. That makes Starr’s feat more significant.
The bottom line, however, is winning the LOS. That makes the QB secondary. GB teams had better interior linemen.
RIP Forrest Gregg...

Packers great Forrest Gregg, 'finest player' Vince Lombardi coached, dies at 85

Well the simple math says that Brady in that era would have been in more championship games than he has because the road for a top two reg season team to a championship game today is much tougher. The probability for much of Starr's career for his top two team to make the championship game in the postseason was 100%. Now that means two wins.

And while winning the line of scrimmage has always been key, we have seen more and more that great QB play is the constant to winning with any consistency. There is no elite playing QB with a losing record. There are plenty at other positions. If winning the LOS was as important as QB play, Joe Thomas would have rings.. we've seen lines that QBs have dominated behind look putrid the moment the QB changes or vice versa (See colts and broncos with and without manning, or pats with Cassel, or Marino teams).

Skill positions are icing on the cake. Football is always won at the LOS. It’s like rebounding in basketball. Not glamorous but paramount.
Brady would not have lasted long enough to accrue his championships had he played in Starr’s era. Simple fact.
There is unfortunately little discussion to that effect because the NFL erases most of its legacy prior to 1966 (a TV thing). It’s a marketing thing. Their clientele isn’t too interested in history and the NFL likes it that way. Kinda like if MLB downplayed Williams and Ruth and Gehrig and Feller and Fox, etc.

And yes there's plenty of people who think Brady wouldn't have lasted as long back then.

And plenty who think Bart Starr would have never had an NFL career had his college career and size went as it did today (lied about a hazing incident that injured his back to the team, missed his junior year, and was benched constantly as a senior in a really bad year).

So it makes it really tough to compare these to in some fantasy world.

Which is why I do it with how they actually performed versus their peers and actual accomplishments, where Brady holds the better efficiency, volume and win rate with more championships in a league that relies on the ability of a QB more.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

There are currently 12 teams that make the playoffs out of 32 teams. That would mean it’s 3 times easier to make the playoffs than it was in 1966.
1967 divided the league into 4 divisions so 4 teams of 16 made the post-season. That still would equate to only 8 teams now as opposed to 12.
The current 16-game season allows for a greater chance to make up for earlier losses. Combined, it’s much easier now to make the post-season than in Starr’s era.
The rules changes that currently protect QBs now also allow for longer careers.

So what you are saying is that instead of 6 playoff teams in the AFC, back then it would have been the equivalent of 4 (4 of top 16).

The problem with that, is that Brady has not once played a road wild card game (5/6 seed position). So not once has he been able to take advantage of slipping in the playoffs with one of those lower seeds. Instead, where Starr as a 4 seed would be able to get a pass in the wild card, and go on to face the 1 seed in the divisional week post-1966, Brady as a 4 seed would have to play and win a wild card game to advance to that point. Or Pre-1966 where Starr as a top 2 seed could automatically make the championship, Brady as a top 2 seed had to win two postseason games to get there.

Remember, Brady won 78% of his starts. Starr won 60% of his. Brady would not have a harder time making the post-season in Starr's era. He'd just have a lot easier run to the championship game once he was there.

For his first 10 years, Starr was able to make the playoffs being one of the top 2-3 teams in the NFL of 14 teams. One year it was tougher (1966), and after that it was back to easier (3 and 4 seeds didn't have to win a wild card game to make it to divisional round, they automatically advanced).

And while the current 16 game season gives you a better chance to make up for losses, it also puts less emphasis on individual wins as well. For example the 2007 NYG might beat the pats in a 1 game series, but if you turn that into a best of 5, does it become easier or harder?

So while it's easier for teams overall to make the post-season, it's harder for the top teams to advance in the post-season. Which is why Starr only had to win 9 games for 5 championships. and Brady had to win 18 for his 6.


Brady's not getting the benefit of that 5/6 seed, but rather having to face them to advance to the spot where Starr's teams automatically got.





Lastly I do agree that rules changes help QB's. The Packers starting D-line averaged 245 lbs when Starr came into the league. They averaged 307 lbs last year. The NFL had to do something as those players not only became bigger, but stronger and faster. And QB's are no longer throwing 15-20 times a game, but 25-35.


I fully agree a player can extend their career and their prime today. That has to do with those rule changes, medical advances (Brady's 08 ACL might have been a career ender 40 years earlier), but also players diets and off-season regimens.

And then you can get into outplaying your peers. Besides Brady setting his team in a top 2 seed out of 16 teams more often than Starr did with 16 or 14, his play has been more consistent.

Every year Brady's QB rating has been at least 10% higher than the league average. Starr's wasn't for 5 years, nearly 1/3 of his career.

Every year Brady's INT and TD rates have been better than lg avg every year but one. 9 times that's happened for Starr.

Starr won one MVP in a league with half the players as Brady, and Brady's won 3.

besides coming out on top on efficiency numbers vs. his peers, Brady has led the league in yards or TD's for volume numbers 5 times. Starr.... zero.

So not only is he making the post-season (even by those older standards) more often than Starr, he's outplaying his peers moreso than Starr in both efficiency and volume..


Like I said, it is difficult comparing across era's.

That’s an extremely convoluted way to try to deny simple math and probability.
Again, the rules changes made it possible for Brady to play long enough to accrue those championships. That makes Starr’s feat more significant.
The bottom line, however, is winning the LOS. That makes the QB secondary. GB teams had better interior linemen.
RIP Forrest Gregg...

Packers great Forrest Gregg, 'finest player' Vince Lombardi coached, dies at 85

Well the simple math says that Brady in that era would have been in more championship games than he has because the road for a top two reg season team to a championship game today is much tougher. The probability for much of Starr's career for his top two team to make the championship game in the postseason was 100%. Now that means two wins.

And while winning the line of scrimmage has always been key, we have seen more and more that great QB play is the constant to winning with any consistency. There is no elite playing QB with a losing record. There are plenty at other positions. If winning the LOS was as important as QB play, Joe Thomas would have rings.. we've seen lines that QBs have dominated behind look putrid the moment the QB changes or vice versa (See colts and broncos with and without manning, or pats with Cassel, or Marino teams).

Skill positions are icing on the cake. Football is always won at the LOS. It’s like rebounding in basketball. Not glamorous but paramount.
Brady would not have lasted long enough to accrue his championships had he played in Starr’s era. Simple fact.
There is unfortunately little discussion to that effect because the NFL erases most of its legacy prior to 1966 (a TV thing). It’s a marketing thing. Their clientele isn’t too interested in history and the NFL likes it that way. Kinda like if MLB downplayed Williams and Ruth and Gehrig and Feller and Fox, etc.

And that's neat that some people think that. While having a rebounder like Dennis rodman was a huge help to the bulls, they weren't winning without Michael Jordan.

And you can have the best left tackle of an era, and the worst record of that same era.

But there is no Peyton Brady Rogers brees qb with a horrible record. And yet all of those guys have won despite their lines changing over multiple times. And for many of them the second which they stepped away we instantly had some of the biggest drops in offensive performance in league history.

The reason NFL GM's are willing to overpay and overdraft quarterbacks as you can't win with consistency without one.

Look at the top 7 teams of the past 15 years. it's no coincidence that their quarterbacks are Brady, Peyton, Rodgers, Brees, Ben, Wilson, and Romo/Dak

Look at the bottom 7 . Couch, Russell, Bradford, Bortles, Simms, Manuel and a slew of other inconsistent guys at QB.

Richard Seymour didn't go from being a perennial super bowl contender to a perennial basement player because he still wasn't good. He had a couple great years in Oakland.. but he no longer had Tom Brady

Tony Ugoh may have been the blind side tackle for the best pass blocking line in the league.. and immediately couldn't find or keep a job. Because he no longer had Peyton Manning.

It isn't down playing past guards or current centers to say that the NBA has changed and the value of those positions have as well.

The QB significance goes back to rules changes to encourage throwing a ball across a TV screen to appease abbreviated intellect.
And for every Brady or Manning with an effective line there is an Archie Manning.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

There are currently 12 teams that make the playoffs out of 32 teams. That would mean it’s 3 times easier to make the playoffs than it was in 1966.
1967 divided the league into 4 divisions so 4 teams of 16 made the post-season. That still would equate to only 8 teams now as opposed to 12.
The current 16-game season allows for a greater chance to make up for earlier losses. Combined, it’s much easier now to make the post-season than in Starr’s era.
The rules changes that currently protect QBs now also allow for longer careers.

So what you are saying is that instead of 6 playoff teams in the AFC, back then it would have been the equivalent of 4 (4 of top 16).

The problem with that, is that Brady has not once played a road wild card game (5/6 seed position). So not once has he been able to take advantage of slipping in the playoffs with one of those lower seeds. Instead, where Starr as a 4 seed would be able to get a pass in the wild card, and go on to face the 1 seed in the divisional week post-1966, Brady as a 4 seed would have to play and win a wild card game to advance to that point. Or Pre-1966 where Starr as a top 2 seed could automatically make the championship, Brady as a top 2 seed had to win two postseason games to get there.

Remember, Brady won 78% of his starts. Starr won 60% of his. Brady would not have a harder time making the post-season in Starr's era. He'd just have a lot easier run to the championship game once he was there.

For his first 10 years, Starr was able to make the playoffs being one of the top 2-3 teams in the NFL of 14 teams. One year it was tougher (1966), and after that it was back to easier (3 and 4 seeds didn't have to win a wild card game to make it to divisional round, they automatically advanced).

And while the current 16 game season gives you a better chance to make up for losses, it also puts less emphasis on individual wins as well. For example the 2007 NYG might beat the pats in a 1 game series, but if you turn that into a best of 5, does it become easier or harder?

So while it's easier for teams overall to make the post-season, it's harder for the top teams to advance in the post-season. Which is why Starr only had to win 9 games for 5 championships. and Brady had to win 18 for his 6.


Brady's not getting the benefit of that 5/6 seed, but rather having to face them to advance to the spot where Starr's teams automatically got.





Lastly I do agree that rules changes help QB's. The Packers starting D-line averaged 245 lbs when Starr came into the league. They averaged 307 lbs last year. The NFL had to do something as those players not only became bigger, but stronger and faster. And QB's are no longer throwing 15-20 times a game, but 25-35.


I fully agree a player can extend their career and their prime today. That has to do with those rule changes, medical advances (Brady's 08 ACL might have been a career ender 40 years earlier), but also players diets and off-season regimens.

And then you can get into outplaying your peers. Besides Brady setting his team in a top 2 seed out of 16 teams more often than Starr did with 16 or 14, his play has been more consistent.

Every year Brady's QB rating has been at least 10% higher than the league average. Starr's wasn't for 5 years, nearly 1/3 of his career.

Every year Brady's INT and TD rates have been better than lg avg every year but one. 9 times that's happened for Starr.

Starr won one MVP in a league with half the players as Brady, and Brady's won 3.

besides coming out on top on efficiency numbers vs. his peers, Brady has led the league in yards or TD's for volume numbers 5 times. Starr.... zero.

So not only is he making the post-season (even by those older standards) more often than Starr, he's outplaying his peers moreso than Starr in both efficiency and volume..


Like I said, it is difficult comparing across era's.

That’s an extremely convoluted way to try to deny simple math and probability.
Again, the rules changes made it possible for Brady to play long enough to accrue those championships. That makes Starr’s feat more significant.
The bottom line, however, is winning the LOS. That makes the QB secondary. GB teams had better interior linemen.
RIP Forrest Gregg...

Packers great Forrest Gregg, 'finest player' Vince Lombardi coached, dies at 85

Well the simple math says that Brady in that era would have been in more championship games than he has because the road for a top two reg season team to a championship game today is much tougher. The probability for much of Starr's career for his top two team to make the championship game in the postseason was 100%. Now that means two wins.

And while winning the line of scrimmage has always been key, we have seen more and more that great QB play is the constant to winning with any consistency. There is no elite playing QB with a losing record. There are plenty at other positions. If winning the LOS was as important as QB play, Joe Thomas would have rings.. we've seen lines that QBs have dominated behind look putrid the moment the QB changes or vice versa (See colts and broncos with and without manning, or pats with Cassel, or Marino teams).

Skill positions are icing on the cake. Football is always won at the LOS. It’s like rebounding in basketball. Not glamorous but paramount.
Brady would not have lasted long enough to accrue his championships had he played in Starr’s era. Simple fact.
There is unfortunately little discussion to that effect because the NFL erases most of its legacy prior to 1966 (a TV thing). It’s a marketing thing. Their clientele isn’t too interested in history and the NFL likes it that way. Kinda like if MLB downplayed Williams and Ruth and Gehrig and Feller and Fox, etc.

And yes there's plenty of people who think Brady wouldn't have lasted as long back then.

And plenty who think Bart Starr would have never had an NFL career had his college career and size went as it did today (lied about a hazing incident that injured his back to the team, missed his junior year, and was benched constantly as a senior in a really bad year).

So it makes it really tough to compare these to in some fantasy world.

Which is why I do it with how they actually performed versus their peers and actual accomplishments, where Brady holds the better efficiency, volume and win rate with more championships in a league that relies on the ability of a QB more.

Rules changes to encourage throwing the ball across a TV screen to appease abbreviated intellect.

 

[SandSquid]

And I guess a lot of it is preference..

There's quite a few who with Terry Bradshaw's winning and great postseasons in the toughest era to throw the football, and as soon as rules opened the passing game, past his prime playing as a league mvp and leading the league in TDs deserves more love.

Plenty who say that no other quarterback had to play with a worse run game/run defense than Dan Marino in the playoffs.

Ones who say that Otto Graham won in the NFL and the AAFC which was on a similar talent level more than anyone.

Ones that say that had Staubachs prime had not been spent in the Vietnam war, he would have been Montana before Montana.

Others who say that Starr wasn't the best qb of his era, just on the better team that controlled the LOS and ran better and Unitas was the best qb.

All have merit to some degree...

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

And I guess a lot of it is preference..

There's quite a few who with Terry Bradshaw's winning and great postseasons in the toughest era to throw the football, and as soon as rules opened the passing game, past his prime playing as a league mvp and leading the league in TDs deserves more love.

Plenty who say that no other quarterback had to play with a worse run game/run defense than Dan Marino in the playoffs.

Ones who say that Otto Graham won in the NFL and the AAFC which was on a similar talent level more than anyone.

Ones that say that had Staubachs prime had not been spent in the Vietnam war, he would have been Montana before Montana.

Others who say that Starr wasn't the best qb of his era, just on the better team that controlled the LOS and ran better and Unitas was the best qb.

All have merit to some degree...

Which makes the ultimate point that you can’t cast Brady as best ever. Too many variables.

 

[SandSquid]

So what you are saying is that instead of 6 playoff teams in the AFC, back then it would have been the equivalent of 4 (4 of top 16).

The problem with that, is that Brady has not once played a road wild card game (5/6 seed position). So not once has he been able to take advantage of slipping in the playoffs with one of those lower seeds. Instead, where Starr as a 4 seed would be able to get a pass in the wild card, and go on to face the 1 seed in the divisional week post-1966, Brady as a 4 seed would have to play and win a wild card game to advance to that point. Or Pre-1966 where Starr as a top 2 seed could automatically make the championship, Brady as a top 2 seed had to win two postseason games to get there.

Remember, Brady won 78% of his starts. Starr won 60% of his. Brady would not have a harder time making the post-season in Starr's era. He'd just have a lot easier run to the championship game once he was there.

For his first 10 years, Starr was able to make the playoffs being one of the top 2-3 teams in the NFL of 14 teams. One year it was tougher (1966), and after that it was back to easier (3 and 4 seeds didn't have to win a wild card game to make it to divisional round, they automatically advanced).

And while the current 16 game season gives you a better chance to make up for losses, it also puts less emphasis on individual wins as well. For example the 2007 NYG might beat the pats in a 1 game series, but if you turn that into a best of 5, does it become easier or harder?

So while it's easier for teams overall to make the post-season, it's harder for the top teams to advance in the post-season. Which is why Starr only had to win 9 games for 5 championships. and Brady had to win 18 for his 6.


Brady's not getting the benefit of that 5/6 seed, but rather having to face them to advance to the spot where Starr's teams automatically got.





Lastly I do agree that rules changes help QB's. The Packers starting D-line averaged 245 lbs when Starr came into the league. They averaged 307 lbs last year. The NFL had to do something as those players not only became bigger, but stronger and faster. And QB's are no longer throwing 15-20 times a game, but 25-35.


I fully agree a player can extend their career and their prime today. That has to do with those rule changes, medical advances (Brady's 08 ACL might have been a career ender 40 years earlier), but also players diets and off-season regimens.

And then you can get into outplaying your peers. Besides Brady setting his team in a top 2 seed out of 16 teams more often than Starr did with 16 or 14, his play has been more consistent.

Every year Brady's QB rating has been at least 10% higher than the league average. Starr's wasn't for 5 years, nearly 1/3 of his career.

Every year Brady's INT and TD rates have been better than lg avg every year but one. 9 times that's happened for Starr.

Starr won one MVP in a league with half the players as Brady, and Brady's won 3.

besides coming out on top on efficiency numbers vs. his peers, Brady has led the league in yards or TD's for volume numbers 5 times. Starr.... zero.

So not only is he making the post-season (even by those older standards) more often than Starr, he's outplaying his peers moreso than Starr in both efficiency and volume..


Like I said, it is difficult comparing across era's.

That’s an extremely convoluted way to try to deny simple math and probability.
Again, the rules changes made it possible for Brady to play long enough to accrue those championships. That makes Starr’s feat more significant.
The bottom line, however, is winning the LOS. That makes the QB secondary. GB teams had better interior linemen.
RIP Forrest Gregg...

Packers great Forrest Gregg, 'finest player' Vince Lombardi coached, dies at 85

Well the simple math says that Brady in that era would have been in more championship games than he has because the road for a top two reg season team to a championship game today is much tougher. The probability for much of Starr's career for his top two team to make the championship game in the postseason was 100%. Now that means two wins.

And while winning the line of scrimmage has always been key, we have seen more and more that great QB play is the constant to winning with any consistency. There is no elite playing QB with a losing record. There are plenty at other positions. If winning the LOS was as important as QB play, Joe Thomas would have rings.. we've seen lines that QBs have dominated behind look putrid the moment the QB changes or vice versa (See colts and broncos with and without manning, or pats with Cassel, or Marino teams).

Skill positions are icing on the cake. Football is always won at the LOS. It’s like rebounding in basketball. Not glamorous but paramount.
Brady would not have lasted long enough to accrue his championships had he played in Starr’s era. Simple fact.
There is unfortunately little discussion to that effect because the NFL erases most of its legacy prior to 1966 (a TV thing). It’s a marketing thing. Their clientele isn’t too interested in history and the NFL likes it that way. Kinda like if MLB downplayed Williams and Ruth and Gehrig and Feller and Fox, etc.

And that's neat that some people think that. While having a rebounder like Dennis rodman was a huge help to the bulls, they weren't winning without Michael Jordan.

And you can have the best left tackle of an era, and the worst record of that same era.

But there is no Peyton Brady Rogers brees qb with a horrible record. And yet all of those guys have won despite their lines changing over multiple times. And for many of them the second which they stepped away we instantly had some of the biggest drops in offensive performance in league history.

The reason NFL GM's are willing to overpay and overdraft quarterbacks as you can't win with consistency without one.

Look at the top 7 teams of the past 15 years. it's no coincidence that their quarterbacks are Brady, Peyton, Rodgers, Brees, Ben, Wilson, and Romo/Dak

Look at the bottom 7 . Couch, Russell, Bradford, Bortles, Simms, Manuel and a slew of other inconsistent guys at QB.

Richard Seymour didn't go from being a perennial super bowl contender to a perennial basement player because he still wasn't good. He had a couple great years in Oakland.. but he no longer had Tom Brady

Tony Ugoh may have been the blind side tackle for the best pass blocking line in the league.. and immediately couldn't find or keep a job. Because he no longer had Peyton Manning.

It isn't down playing past guards or current centers to say that the NBA has changed and the value of those positions have as well.

The QB significance goes back to rules changes to encourage throwing a ball across a TV screen to appease abbreviated intellect.
And for every Brady or Manning with an effective line there is an Archie Manning.

Kind of funny how ineffective those lines looked without Brady and Manning there.

Like the colts led the league in sacks. The year before manning and as soon as he showed up they were the best. Names changed four times at a minimum over every position, and still he was the lowest sacked. Then the second he misses a year back in the basement.

Seriously.

1997 colts 62 sacks on 523 attempts.
1998 colts (Peyton) 22 sacks on 576 attempts
Stayed in the top 3 every single year
Colts in Peyton's last season .16 sacks in 679 attempts

Next year 35 in 530 attempts.


Meanwhile Denver that year had 42 sacks in 429 attempts.

Following year they add Peyton... 21 in 588 attempts and all of a sudden they have one of the best pass blocking lines.

 

[SandSquid]

And I guess a lot of it is preference..

There's quite a few who with Terry Bradshaw's winning and great postseasons in the toughest era to throw the football, and as soon as rules opened the passing game, past his prime playing as a league mvp and leading the league in TDs deserves more love.

Plenty who say that no other quarterback had to play with a worse run game/run defense than Dan Marino in the playoffs.

Ones who say that Otto Graham won in the NFL and the AAFC which was on a similar talent level more than anyone.

Ones that say that had Staubachs prime had not been spent in the Vietnam war, he would have been Montana before Montana.

Others who say that Starr wasn't the best qb of his era, just on the better team that controlled the LOS and ran better and Unitas was the best qb.

All have merit to some degree...

Which makes the ultimate point that you can’t cast Brady as best ever. Too many variables.

I can. That's my opinion. It's based on him outplaying his peers and winning the ultimate goal more than any other.

And for me when it comes to the best of the best, I think it's easier to rely on who accomplished the most rather than the reasons of why someone didn't.

Likewise even though I choose to defend my choice as much as I'd rather not say that, your opinion has validity too based on your beliefs on what makes a great QB.

I probably rank staubach and aikman higher than most.

Staubach for being able to throw so well and efficiently in an era designed to stop that.

Aikman for a similar reason. Putting up WCO efficiency despite not playing in one, and showing he could sling it and outsling all time greats (Young and Favre) in the biggest games when they put it on his shoulders.

Marino is another . I forget the exact numbers but something like 40% of the largest rushing disparities in the playoffs were Marino teams . And of those games where a team was outrushed by 150 or so yards in the playoffs in NFL history, those QBs were 1-22. That lone win was Marino.

It's tough going into a SB playing a team who's entire secondary is in the pro bowl, against the team that can run for over 5 yards of carry and over 200 yds... Oh yeah and they also have Montana. And you get less than 3 yards a carry and 25 yards, half of which came on a single run with the game out of hand.

But like I said when it comes to naming the best, for me i lean towards guy who did it, rather than those reasons or excuses for someone who didn't.

 

[SandSquid]

Now we can do the same with Brady's line.

Remember that great line of Light Koppen, Neal, Mankins, and Kaczur. Starting 5 for three straight years.

2007 21 sacks in 578 attempts. At the top.
2008 48 sacks in 534 attempts.
2009 16 sacks in 565 attempts.

That 2008 year people were writing about how poor that offensive line looked. Same line that looked great in 07, and 09. Different qb.

And no. Tony Ugoh and Tony Mandarich may have started on some of the best pass blocking lines... They were not "effective" linemen.

Chris Clark starting at LT was not good when he replaced Ryan Clady. Peyton still threw 55 TDs with him. And their 3rd string center. And a guard playing the other tackle spot.

How come those effective lines couldn't win, protect the QB or lead great offenses without the great QB? How come when they left for free agency were they just not as effective with an astounding frequency? Mankins was dominant. Then poof the moment he leaves NE, he's leading a bottom 3 offense.

I mean Belichick is still a sub 500 coach in New England when Brady is not his quarterback.

 

[SandSquid]

So what you are saying is that instead of 6 playoff teams in the AFC, back then it would have been the equivalent of 4 (4 of top 16).

The problem with that, is that Brady has not once played a road wild card game (5/6 seed position). So not once has he been able to take advantage of slipping in the playoffs with one of those lower seeds. Instead, where Starr as a 4 seed would be able to get a pass in the wild card, and go on to face the 1 seed in the divisional week post-1966, Brady as a 4 seed would have to play and win a wild card game to advance to that point. Or Pre-1966 where Starr as a top 2 seed could automatically make the championship, Brady as a top 2 seed had to win two postseason games to get there.

Remember, Brady won 78% of his starts. Starr won 60% of his. Brady would not have a harder time making the post-season in Starr's era. He'd just have a lot easier run to the championship game once he was there.

For his first 10 years, Starr was able to make the playoffs being one of the top 2-3 teams in the NFL of 14 teams. One year it was tougher (1966), and after that it was back to easier (3 and 4 seeds didn't have to win a wild card game to make it to divisional round, they automatically advanced).

And while the current 16 game season gives you a better chance to make up for losses, it also puts less emphasis on individual wins as well. For example the 2007 NYG might beat the pats in a 1 game series, but if you turn that into a best of 5, does it become easier or harder?

So while it's easier for teams overall to make the post-season, it's harder for the top teams to advance in the post-season. Which is why Starr only had to win 9 games for 5 championships. and Brady had to win 18 for his 6.


Brady's not getting the benefit of that 5/6 seed, but rather having to face them to advance to the spot where Starr's teams automatically got.





Lastly I do agree that rules changes help QB's. The Packers starting D-line averaged 245 lbs when Starr came into the league. They averaged 307 lbs last year. The NFL had to do something as those players not only became bigger, but stronger and faster. And QB's are no longer throwing 15-20 times a game, but 25-35.


I fully agree a player can extend their career and their prime today. That has to do with those rule changes, medical advances (Brady's 08 ACL might have been a career ender 40 years earlier), but also players diets and off-season regimens.

And then you can get into outplaying your peers. Besides Brady setting his team in a top 2 seed out of 16 teams more often than Starr did with 16 or 14, his play has been more consistent.

Every year Brady's QB rating has been at least 10% higher than the league average. Starr's wasn't for 5 years, nearly 1/3 of his career.

Every year Brady's INT and TD rates have been better than lg avg every year but one. 9 times that's happened for Starr.

Starr won one MVP in a league with half the players as Brady, and Brady's won 3.

besides coming out on top on efficiency numbers vs. his peers, Brady has led the league in yards or TD's for volume numbers 5 times. Starr.... zero.

So not only is he making the post-season (even by those older standards) more often than Starr, he's outplaying his peers moreso than Starr in both efficiency and volume..


Like I said, it is difficult comparing across era's.

That’s an extremely convoluted way to try to deny simple math and probability.
Again, the rules changes made it possible for Brady to play long enough to accrue those championships. That makes Starr’s feat more significant.
The bottom line, however, is winning the LOS. That makes the QB secondary. GB teams had better interior linemen.
RIP Forrest Gregg...

Packers great Forrest Gregg, 'finest player' Vince Lombardi coached, dies at 85

Well the simple math says that Brady in that era would have been in more championship games than he has because the road for a top two reg season team to a championship game today is much tougher. The probability for much of Starr's career for his top two team to make the championship game in the postseason was 100%. Now that means two wins.

And while winning the line of scrimmage has always been key, we have seen more and more that great QB play is the constant to winning with any consistency. There is no elite playing QB with a losing record. There are plenty at other positions. If winning the LOS was as important as QB play, Joe Thomas would have rings.. we've seen lines that QBs have dominated behind look putrid the moment the QB changes or vice versa (See colts and broncos with and without manning, or pats with Cassel, or Marino teams).

Skill positions are icing on the cake. Football is always won at the LOS. It’s like rebounding in basketball. Not glamorous but paramount.
Brady would not have lasted long enough to accrue his championships had he played in Starr’s era. Simple fact.
There is unfortunately little discussion to that effect because the NFL erases most of its legacy prior to 1966 (a TV thing). It’s a marketing thing. Their clientele isn’t too interested in history and the NFL likes it that way. Kinda like if MLB downplayed Williams and Ruth and Gehrig and Feller and Fox, etc.

And yes there's plenty of people who think Brady wouldn't have lasted as long back then.

And plenty who think Bart Starr would have never had an NFL career had his college career and size went as it did today (lied about a hazing incident that injured his back to the team, missed his junior year, and was benched constantly as a senior in a really bad year).

So it makes it really tough to compare these to in some fantasy world.

Which is why I do it with how they actually performed versus their peers and actual accomplishments, where Brady holds the better efficiency, volume and win rate with more championships in a league that relies on the ability of a QB more.

Rules changes to encourage throwing the ball across a TV screen to appease abbreviated intellect.

I agree. They saw that it was in the '50s, when Unitas led the colts on that OT drive that QBs are what drives the fans.

They saw the AFL throwing the ball and becoming competitive with them by throwing the ball. And in the late '60s and 70s defenses were shutting down the passing game. so in 1978 they made that major rule change to open it up and I think that that was to engage fans more.

Which one could argue led to more elite athletes wanting to play football. And more of them wanting to play QB instead of FB, giving the NFL the best group of QBs it's ever had.

 

[SandSquid]

I guess another one of those what ifs would be John Elway. Huge amounts of talent and yes he was successful. And as soon as shanahan took over with the WCO his efficiency numbers were right there with Montana.

Brees is one. Throws as well as anyone who ever has, and one of the best playoff performers at the quarterback position ever. Granted he's also been paired with a defense which has had years you could say it was the worst in history, along with having to play alongside Peyton and Brady. I probably.put him closer to those two than most others myself.

 

[sealybobo]

You saw the game; tell me what you think of Tom Brady.

17 years later, he’s better than Montana.

 

[rightwinger]

17 years later, he’s better than Montana.

Brady passed Montana a decade ago

 

[sealybobo]

You saw the game; tell me what you think of Tom Brady.

You called it in 2005?!!!!!

 

[sealybobo]

Brady passed Montana a decade ago

How you like last night? Down 13 with 5 minutes left. No fucking way.