Is Tom Brady the Greatest Ever?

[Alex.]

There are 3 greatest quarterbacks of all time with 4 Superbowls each Brady, Montana and Bradshaw. If he wins this one, Brady is number one.

Don't people give jim kelly a lot of credit just for making it to 4 superbowls and losing them? OK, now consider if Brady loses that will be 3 times he lost a Superbowl?

So wouldn't you say a QB who made it to 3 superbowls and lost them was pretty damn good? So even if you took away bradys 4 superbowl wins you would admit he's pretty damn good. How many men have been to 3 superbowls? Not many. He's either going to be 4 wins 3 loses or 5 wins 2 loses. Either way that's a lot more winning than anyone else. I'd rather have bradys career than anyone elses

Brady is going to his seventh Superbowl and has been to eleven AFC Championship games and 33 total playoff games

Quite a career

You’re right. He’s not responsible for it but if he had started his career in 1980 instead of 2000, he’d be facing the following:

Defensive backs who could get away with MUCH more in terms of coverage, stick-um, and defensive units that had much more freedom to decapitate the QB. Consider this. In 1980, the total number of passes was 13,705. And there was 627 interceptions.
In 2016, there was nearly 5,000 more pass attempts made by NFL quarterbacks but over 200 fewer interceptions.
Some of this increase in passing is due to expansion and new/replacement teams in Jacksonville, Carolina, Houston and Cleveland but it would stand to reason that the dilution of QBs (it being a far more complex position) would lead to more interceptions, not fewer. Also, it would stand to reason that the field being the same size, the athletes being bagger, stronger, and faster would mean more interceptions etc…

Year PA INT
2016 18298 415
2006 16389 520
1996 15966 542
1986 14469 581
1980 13705 627

Put another way, In 1980, when Joe Montana started making his name…there were 28 teams. The Raiders had 35 interceptions as a team. The Saints had the fewest with 12. In the pass happy 2016 season with about 5,000 more passes, the KC Chiefs lead the league with 18 INTs…6 teams had 10 or fewer grabs.

Clearly, the league favors passers more now than ever before; or at least in recent history.

Brady has been assisted by the expansion more than most as well. Three of the new franchises that found their way into the league are AFC teams, Houston, Cleveland and Jacksonville.

Houston is a -28 on 106 wins and 134 losses
Cleveland (who has NEVER won more than 10 games since reinstatement) is apparently -200 with 88 wins and 200 losses
Jacksonville are a -42: 155-197-0

You think Brady/NE has done well against these guys? You’re right 7 and 0 against the Jags, 6 and 1 against the Texans and 7 and 2 against the Browns (since 1999). Of course, expansion has a tendency to lower the barriers for entry. One could argue that he, a 6th round choice, benefitted from it as well. If the Jags, Panthers, and Browns not been there, 18 more players would have been on the board when Brady was selected…who is to say whether the Patriots had one of them ahead. Further…the AFC east competition for the Patriots has not exactly been a model of consistency. Miami has had 8 coaches since 2000, so has Buffalo. The Gents have had 5. Presumably, that is 21 different playbook, 21 different philosophies, lord knows how many different GMs, PPDs, and coordinators.

Again, let me stress, none of this is something that benefits Brady directly. It’s simply the environment he has prospered in and every other QB had essentially the same opportunity. Brady is great but it is hard to find another QB that has benefitted as much from the environment as TB—or one that has mercilessly dispatched his foes.

I try to avoid comparing statistics between era's. The game has changed significantly

I don't see any benefit from expansion. You still have to finish at the top of the heap....which Brady has done repeatedly
Montana had to beat 27 other teams, Brady had to beat 31 other teams (Vince Lombardi's Packers only had to beat 13 other teams)

So if you can't really compare statistics you have to look at:
Did they win championships?
Did they come up big in the clutch?

Both Brady and Montana did both. I give Brady a slight edge now, and hands down if he beats the Falcons

In addition to the rules changes and the landscape of the ownership, the profit sharing schemes, public perception of the game and league.....and finally whether the QB and the team he plays for are cheaters.

All that and much more have to be figured in.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I used to think Joe Montana was the greatest ever, but I'm wondering if Tom Brady is the best.

What do you think?

Byproduct of the system... Had Manning been in the same system then you might argue Manning was the greatest...

 

[rightwinger]

I used to think Joe Montana was the greatest ever, but I'm wondering if Tom Brady is the best.

What do you think?

Byproduct of the system... Had Manning been in the same system then you might argue Manning was the greatest...

True....and Joe Montana benefitted from Bill Walsh's west coast offense that covered up his deficiencies as a QB

 

[Abishai100]

The Constant Gardener

You have to think that when there are surefire 'old gen guys' (e.g., Joe Montana), troubled-shaky 'new gen guys' (e.g., Matt Leinart), and in-between 'rustleweed Super Bowl almost-could've-beens' (e.g., Fran Tarkenton/Jim Kelly), all you're left with are the 'tried-and-true' iron-men (e.g., Brady, Bradshaw, Elway).

Brady stands out because of his supporting-staff, the well-oiled Machine that is the Patriots (Belichick-and-Company).

I think Tom Brady is the Roger Federer of the NFL when compared to *comets* such as the Cardinals' retired Matt Leinart (of USC fame).

Brady may not be the 'best-ever' caliber (e.g., Joe Montana, Peyton Manning, etc.), but he's certainly one of the Iron Men.

 

[Montrovant]

There are 3 greatest quarterbacks of all time with 4 Superbowls each Brady, Montana and Bradshaw. If he wins this one, Brady is number one.

Don't people give jim kelly a lot of credit just for making it to 4 superbowls and losing them? OK, now consider if Brady loses that will be 3 times he lost a Superbowl?

So wouldn't you say a QB who made it to 3 superbowls and lost them was pretty damn good? So even if you took away bradys 4 superbowl wins you would admit he's pretty damn good. How many men have been to 3 superbowls? Not many. He's either going to be 4 wins 3 loses or 5 wins 2 loses. Either way that's a lot more winning than anyone else. I'd rather have bradys career than anyone elses

Brady is going to his seventh Superbowl and has been to eleven AFC Championship games and 33 total playoff games

Quite a career

You’re right. He’s not responsible for it but if he had started his career in 1980 instead of 2000, he’d be facing the following:

Defensive backs who could get away with MUCH more in terms of coverage, stick-um, and defensive units that had much more freedom to decapitate the QB. Consider this. In 1980, the total number of passes was 13,705. And there was 627 interceptions.
In 2016, there was nearly 5,000 more pass attempts made by NFL quarterbacks but over 200 fewer interceptions.
Some of this increase in passing is due to expansion and new/replacement teams in Jacksonville, Carolina, Houston and Cleveland but it would stand to reason that the dilution of QBs (it being a far more complex position) would lead to more interceptions, not fewer. Also, it would stand to reason that the field being the same size, the athletes being bagger, stronger, and faster would mean more interceptions etc…

Year PA INT
2016 18298 415
2006 16389 520
1996 15966 542
1986 14469 581
1980 13705 627

Put another way, In 1980, when Joe Montana started making his name…there were 28 teams. The Raiders had 35 interceptions as a team. The Saints had the fewest with 12. In the pass happy 2016 season with about 5,000 more passes, the KC Chiefs lead the league with 18 INTs…6 teams had 10 or fewer grabs.

Clearly, the league favors passers more now than ever before; or at least in recent history.

Brady has been assisted by the expansion more than most as well. Three of the new franchises that found their way into the league are AFC teams, Houston, Cleveland and Jacksonville.

Houston is a -28 on 106 wins and 134 losses
Cleveland (who has NEVER won more than 10 games since reinstatement) is apparently -200 with 88 wins and 200 losses
Jacksonville are a -42: 155-197-0

You think Brady/NE has done well against these guys? You’re right 7 and 0 against the Jags, 6 and 1 against the Texans and 7 and 2 against the Browns (since 1999). Of course, expansion has a tendency to lower the barriers for entry. One could argue that he, a 6th round choice, benefitted from it as well. If the Jags, Panthers, and Browns not been there, 18 more players would have been on the board when Brady was selected…who is to say whether the Patriots had one of them ahead. Further…the AFC east competition for the Patriots has not exactly been a model of consistency. Miami has had 8 coaches since 2000, so has Buffalo. The Gents have had 5. Presumably, that is 21 different playbook, 21 different philosophies, lord knows how many different GMs, PPDs, and coordinators.

Again, let me stress, none of this is something that benefits Brady directly. It’s simply the environment he has prospered in and every other QB had essentially the same opportunity. Brady is great but it is hard to find another QB that has benefitted as much from the environment as TB—or one that has mercilessly dispatched his foes.

I try to avoid comparing statistics between era's. The game has changed significantly

I don't see any benefit from expansion. You still have to finish at the top of the heap....which Brady has done repeatedly
Montana had to beat 27 other teams, Brady had to beat 31 other teams (Vince Lombardi's Packers only had to beat 13 other teams)

So if you can't really compare statistics you have to look at:
Did they win championships?
Did they come up big in the clutch?

Both Brady and Montana did both. I give Brady a slight edge now, and hands down if he beats the Falcons

Brady and Montana have the same number of Super Bowl wins. Montana never lost a SB. I'm not sure how, by your stated metric, that would put Brady ahead. Montana would seem to be more "clutch" based on winning percentage in the big game and stats (no INT in his 4 SBs).

Either one of them are perfectly valid to argue as the best of the SB era.

 

[rightwinger]

There are 3 greatest quarterbacks of all time with 4 Superbowls each Brady, Montana and Bradshaw. If he wins this one, Brady is number one.

Don't people give jim kelly a lot of credit just for making it to 4 superbowls and losing them? OK, now consider if Brady loses that will be 3 times he lost a Superbowl?

So wouldn't you say a QB who made it to 3 superbowls and lost them was pretty damn good? So even if you took away bradys 4 superbowl wins you would admit he's pretty damn good. How many men have been to 3 superbowls? Not many. He's either going to be 4 wins 3 loses or 5 wins 2 loses. Either way that's a lot more winning than anyone else. I'd rather have bradys career than anyone elses

Brady is going to his seventh Superbowl and has been to eleven AFC Championship games and 33 total playoff games

Quite a career

You’re right. He’s not responsible for it but if he had started his career in 1980 instead of 2000, he’d be facing the following:

Defensive backs who could get away with MUCH more in terms of coverage, stick-um, and defensive units that had much more freedom to decapitate the QB. Consider this. In 1980, the total number of passes was 13,705. And there was 627 interceptions.
In 2016, there was nearly 5,000 more pass attempts made by NFL quarterbacks but over 200 fewer interceptions.
Some of this increase in passing is due to expansion and new/replacement teams in Jacksonville, Carolina, Houston and Cleveland but it would stand to reason that the dilution of QBs (it being a far more complex position) would lead to more interceptions, not fewer. Also, it would stand to reason that the field being the same size, the athletes being bagger, stronger, and faster would mean more interceptions etc…

Year PA INT
2016 18298 415
2006 16389 520
1996 15966 542
1986 14469 581
1980 13705 627

Put another way, In 1980, when Joe Montana started making his name…there were 28 teams. The Raiders had 35 interceptions as a team. The Saints had the fewest with 12. In the pass happy 2016 season with about 5,000 more passes, the KC Chiefs lead the league with 18 INTs…6 teams had 10 or fewer grabs.

Clearly, the league favors passers more now than ever before; or at least in recent history.

Brady has been assisted by the expansion more than most as well. Three of the new franchises that found their way into the league are AFC teams, Houston, Cleveland and Jacksonville.

Houston is a -28 on 106 wins and 134 losses
Cleveland (who has NEVER won more than 10 games since reinstatement) is apparently -200 with 88 wins and 200 losses
Jacksonville are a -42: 155-197-0

You think Brady/NE has done well against these guys? You’re right 7 and 0 against the Jags, 6 and 1 against the Texans and 7 and 2 against the Browns (since 1999). Of course, expansion has a tendency to lower the barriers for entry. One could argue that he, a 6th round choice, benefitted from it as well. If the Jags, Panthers, and Browns not been there, 18 more players would have been on the board when Brady was selected…who is to say whether the Patriots had one of them ahead. Further…the AFC east competition for the Patriots has not exactly been a model of consistency. Miami has had 8 coaches since 2000, so has Buffalo. The Gents have had 5. Presumably, that is 21 different playbook, 21 different philosophies, lord knows how many different GMs, PPDs, and coordinators.

Again, let me stress, none of this is something that benefits Brady directly. It’s simply the environment he has prospered in and every other QB had essentially the same opportunity. Brady is great but it is hard to find another QB that has benefitted as much from the environment as TB—or one that has mercilessly dispatched his foes.

I try to avoid comparing statistics between era's. The game has changed significantly

I don't see any benefit from expansion. You still have to finish at the top of the heap....which Brady has done repeatedly
Montana had to beat 27 other teams, Brady had to beat 31 other teams (Vince Lombardi's Packers only had to beat 13 other teams)

So if you can't really compare statistics you have to look at:
Did they win championships?
Did they come up big in the clutch?

Both Brady and Montana did both. I give Brady a slight edge now, and hands down if he beats the Falcons

Brady and Montana have the same number of Super Bowl wins. Montana never lost a SB. I'm not sure how, by your stated metric, that would put Brady ahead. Montana would seem to be more "clutch" based on winning percentage in the big game and stats (no INT in his 4 SBs).

Either one of them are perfectly valid to argue as the best of the SB era.

So...let me get this straight

Montana gets credit for not even making it through the playoffs? He may have lost in the first round...but at least he didn't lose the Superbowl

 

[Montrovant]

If you really mean best ever rather than best of the SB era, there are some other names that should be considered. Johnny Unitas won 3 championships and became the prototype for a quarterback. His style revolutionized quarterback play in many ways, and he held records, such as consecutive games with a TD, for decades. Otto Graham had unprecedented success as a quarterback. In his 10 seasons as a pro, he went to 10 championship games, winning 7. No other quarterback has ever come close to that level of success. Graham even won a basketball championship in 1 season with the Rochester Royals of the NBL, hence his nickname "Automatic Otto."

I think it's a lot better to stick to the Super Bowl era rather than try to compare to players who played before then.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

"Cheating Scandals Will Forever Tarnish the Brady-Belichick Legacy"

Cheating Scandals Will Forever Tarnish the Brady-Belichick Legacy

No he is not.

Indeed.you took the Brady apologists to school major big time there.
Shady Brady isnt even one of the top 10 best MODERN day quarterbacks in the superbowl era the fact that he has the home town refs in his pockets.

He cant win a PLAYOFF game on the road anymore cause he doesnt have the home town refs in his pockets.

Last time they did win a playoff game on the road came ten years ago against the chargers who had a coach named marty shittenheimer whos teams always went one and done in the playoffs with the chiefs and chargers. other than when he had Montana which of course is the greatest quarterback ever of all time in the modern era.
and for sure beyond a doubt,not even one of the two twenty of all time.

when you are involved in scandal after scandal you are a fraud.

Joe Montana is the greatest modern day quarterback in the superbowl era with the greatest of all time being Johnny Unitas.

the legitimate reasonable question for this thread title should be-Who is the greatest quarterback of all time in the modern era.Joe Montana,Terry Bradshaw,or John Elway?

Elway is a legit contender of those three because in the beginning when he first came into the league,he had no running game,no defense and had to carry the load all on his shoulders.

I am not sure Montana or Bradshaw could have done that being under those circumstances elway was playing under.

 

[rightwinger]

If you really mean best ever rather than best of the SB era, there are some other names that should be considered. Johnny Unitas won 3 championships and became the prototype for a quarterback. His style revolutionized quarterback play in many ways, and he held records, such as consecutive games with a TD, for decades. Otto Graham had unprecedented success as a quarterback. In his 10 seasons as a pro, he went to 10 championship games, winning 7. No other quarterback has ever come close to that level of success. Graham even won a basketball championship in 1 season with the Rochester Royals of the NBL, hence his nickname "Automatic Otto."

I think it's a lot better to stick to the Super Bowl era rather than try to compare to players who played before then.

Its hard to go back that far and compare QBs
Johnny U was the first "modern" QB running a pro-style offense

Winning championships in the 50s and early 60s was relatively easy
You won your division and went straight to the championship game
You were the best of 14 teams instead of being the best of 32 teams

 

[Alex.]

"Cheating Scandals Will Forever Tarnish the Brady-Belichick Legacy"

Cheating Scandals Will Forever Tarnish the Brady-Belichick Legacy

No he is not.

Indeed.you took the Brady apologists to school major big time there.
Shady Brady isnt even one of the top 10 best MODERN day quarterbacks in the superbowl era the fact that he has the home town refs in his pockets.

He cant win a PLAYOFF game on the road anymore cause he doesnt have the home town refs in his pockets.

Last time they did win a playoff game on the road came ten years ago against the chargers who had a coach named marty shittenheimer whos teams always went one and done in the playoffs with the chiefs and chargers. other than when he had Montana which of course is the greatest quarterback ever of all time in the modern era.
and for sure beyond a doubt,not even one of the two twenty of all time.

when you are involved in scandal after scandal you are a fraud.

Joe Montana is the greatest modern day quarterback in the superbowl era with the greatest of all time being Johnny Unitas.

the legitimate reasonable question for this thread title should be-Who is the greatest quarterback of all time in the modern era.Joe Montana,Terry Bradshaw,or John Elway?

Elway is a legit contender of those three because in the beginning when he first came into the league,he had no running game.no defense and had to carry the load all on his shoulders. I am not sure Montana or Bradshaw could have done that being under those circumstances elway was playing under.

For those who do not want to factor in all the information regarding Brady and just how he got his wins can keep their hero. It doe snot matter much...those fools would gladly fork over their hard earned dollars to an illusion.


I would consider many QBs including those you mentioned over Brady.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I used to think Joe Montana was the greatest ever, but I'm wondering if Tom Brady is the best.

What do you think?

Quarterback for football player?

For player I would go with Jerry Rice.

For QB- well stats be damned- I will go with Joe Montana.

Perhaps I am biased.

Brady is good no doubt but not the best. Think Bret Farve.

There are 3 greatest quarterbacks of all time with 4 Superbowls each Brady, Montana and Bradshaw. If he wins this one, Brady is number one.

cheaters dont count so if we are talking greatest in the superbowl era,the only question is who is the best quarterback in the modern day era between Bradshaw and Montana? same as how Barry Bonds does not count as having the record for most home runs in a season so the question would be who is the greatest home run hitter Ruth or Maris.

 

[Montrovant]

Don't people give jim kelly a lot of credit just for making it to 4 superbowls and losing them? OK, now consider if Brady loses that will be 3 times he lost a Superbowl?

So wouldn't you say a QB who made it to 3 superbowls and lost them was pretty damn good? So even if you took away bradys 4 superbowl wins you would admit he's pretty damn good. How many men have been to 3 superbowls? Not many. He's either going to be 4 wins 3 loses or 5 wins 2 loses. Either way that's a lot more winning than anyone else. I'd rather have bradys career than anyone elses

Brady is going to his seventh Superbowl and has been to eleven AFC Championship games and 33 total playoff games

Quite a career

You’re right. He’s not responsible for it but if he had started his career in 1980 instead of 2000, he’d be facing the following:

Defensive backs who could get away with MUCH more in terms of coverage, stick-um, and defensive units that had much more freedom to decapitate the QB. Consider this. In 1980, the total number of passes was 13,705. And there was 627 interceptions.
In 2016, there was nearly 5,000 more pass attempts made by NFL quarterbacks but over 200 fewer interceptions.
Some of this increase in passing is due to expansion and new/replacement teams in Jacksonville, Carolina, Houston and Cleveland but it would stand to reason that the dilution of QBs (it being a far more complex position) would lead to more interceptions, not fewer. Also, it would stand to reason that the field being the same size, the athletes being bagger, stronger, and faster would mean more interceptions etc…

Year PA INT
2016 18298 415
2006 16389 520
1996 15966 542
1986 14469 581
1980 13705 627

Put another way, In 1980, when Joe Montana started making his name…there were 28 teams. The Raiders had 35 interceptions as a team. The Saints had the fewest with 12. In the pass happy 2016 season with about 5,000 more passes, the KC Chiefs lead the league with 18 INTs…6 teams had 10 or fewer grabs.

Clearly, the league favors passers more now than ever before; or at least in recent history.

Brady has been assisted by the expansion more than most as well. Three of the new franchises that found their way into the league are AFC teams, Houston, Cleveland and Jacksonville.

Houston is a -28 on 106 wins and 134 losses
Cleveland (who has NEVER won more than 10 games since reinstatement) is apparently -200 with 88 wins and 200 losses
Jacksonville are a -42: 155-197-0

You think Brady/NE has done well against these guys? You’re right 7 and 0 against the Jags, 6 and 1 against the Texans and 7 and 2 against the Browns (since 1999). Of course, expansion has a tendency to lower the barriers for entry. One could argue that he, a 6th round choice, benefitted from it as well. If the Jags, Panthers, and Browns not been there, 18 more players would have been on the board when Brady was selected…who is to say whether the Patriots had one of them ahead. Further…the AFC east competition for the Patriots has not exactly been a model of consistency. Miami has had 8 coaches since 2000, so has Buffalo. The Gents have had 5. Presumably, that is 21 different playbook, 21 different philosophies, lord knows how many different GMs, PPDs, and coordinators.

Again, let me stress, none of this is something that benefits Brady directly. It’s simply the environment he has prospered in and every other QB had essentially the same opportunity. Brady is great but it is hard to find another QB that has benefitted as much from the environment as TB—or one that has mercilessly dispatched his foes.

I try to avoid comparing statistics between era's. The game has changed significantly

I don't see any benefit from expansion. You still have to finish at the top of the heap....which Brady has done repeatedly
Montana had to beat 27 other teams, Brady had to beat 31 other teams (Vince Lombardi's Packers only had to beat 13 other teams)

So if you can't really compare statistics you have to look at:
Did they win championships?
Did they come up big in the clutch?

Both Brady and Montana did both. I give Brady a slight edge now, and hands down if he beats the Falcons

Brady and Montana have the same number of Super Bowl wins. Montana never lost a SB. I'm not sure how, by your stated metric, that would put Brady ahead. Montana would seem to be more "clutch" based on winning percentage in the big game and stats (no INT in his 4 SBs).

Either one of them are perfectly valid to argue as the best of the SB era.

So...let me get this straight

Montana gets credit for not even making it through the playoffs? He may have lost in the first round...but at least he didn't lose the Superbowl

No. I'm saying that if coming up big in the clutch is the deciding factor, Montana was better in the clutch. The ultimate expression of coming up big in the clutch would be play in the Super Bowl. Montana was better in his SB appearances than Brady. Montana never lost. Montana's worst QB rating in a SB was 100. Brady only bettered that twice, once by only 0.5. Montana never threw an INT in a SB. In the biggest game, Montana was pretty much the definition of clutch. Brady has been less so.

I don't consider looking just at Super Bowls to be an accurate way to judge a quarterback's career, but I'm going by the two criteria you stated.

You could also argue, using your criteria, that Terry Bradshaw was a better QB than Brady. Bradshaw also won 4 Super Bowls, and he had a better playoff win % than Brady, at .737 to .727.

I think SB wins and even playoff performances are only part of the picture when looking at a quarterback's career. Dan Marino never won a SB and I think he is rightly considered one of the greatest QBs ever. Peyton Manning was no better than an average playoff and SB QB, but he also should be considered when talking about the greatest ever. Trent Dilfer won a SB, but he most certainly should not be.

I have no problem with someone calling Brady the best of the SB era. For myself, I'm still on the fence about it.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Yep. He'd have retired 5 years ago if he had to play for the Browns though and no one would know his name. He's got the best coach of all time with him so it helps.

best coach of all time? you should join a comedy club.

Bill BeliCHEAT before he joined the most corrupt owner in the NFL Robert Kraft who Goodel obviously always has his head up his ass,before joining them he was a total miserable failure with the cleveland browns.

I always laugh my ass off when ESPN and the NFL networks kiss his ass and call him the greatest coach of all time because everytime they do,they NEVER bring up the fact that in his five years with the Cleveland Browns that he only had ONE winning season there before getting fired.

He was a complete failure at cleveland and joins the pats and lands tom brady "who he did not even think was good enough to be a starter yet at the beginning of the season when he took them to their first superbowl superbowl lets not forget only putting him in when he was FORCED to cause Drew Bledsoe went down with an injury then"

He was a failure at cleveland,his first season in NE when Bledsoe was his starter he had another losing season.Tom Brady then comes along "who I admit was pretty good early on when he first came into the league before Belicheat corrupted him." Brady turns their fortunes around and all of a sudden Belicheat is the greatest coach ever?

ESPN and the NFL will never bring up those facts or let anyone come on and challenge them and let them mention those pesky little facts because if they do allow it,it shoots down their propaganda he is one of the best coachs ever and that if not for shady brady,he would be a total failure today.

the belicheat apologists when i bring that up then say he won a whole year with matt castle. well matt castle went 9-7 and took the chiefs to the playoffs one season as well with todd haley.Iby that logic,you got to say todd haley is a great coach as well since castle took them to the playoffs that year.

my local sports radio station was the one that brought that fact up about how Belicheat could never win at cleveland,see THEY are not afraid to talk about that because ESPN and the NFL they have to kiss belicheats ass to get interviews with his players m because if they tell the TRUTH about him,he wont grant them interviews is how it works. where my local sports station,they could care less about getting an interview with the pats players so they hold nothing back.

 

[rightwinger]

Brady is going to his seventh Superbowl and has been to eleven AFC Championship games and 33 total playoff games

Quite a career

You’re right. He’s not responsible for it but if he had started his career in 1980 instead of 2000, he’d be facing the following:

Defensive backs who could get away with MUCH more in terms of coverage, stick-um, and defensive units that had much more freedom to decapitate the QB. Consider this. In 1980, the total number of passes was 13,705. And there was 627 interceptions.
In 2016, there was nearly 5,000 more pass attempts made by NFL quarterbacks but over 200 fewer interceptions.
Some of this increase in passing is due to expansion and new/replacement teams in Jacksonville, Carolina, Houston and Cleveland but it would stand to reason that the dilution of QBs (it being a far more complex position) would lead to more interceptions, not fewer. Also, it would stand to reason that the field being the same size, the athletes being bagger, stronger, and faster would mean more interceptions etc…

Year PA INT
2016 18298 415
2006 16389 520
1996 15966 542
1986 14469 581
1980 13705 627

Put another way, In 1980, when Joe Montana started making his name…there were 28 teams. The Raiders had 35 interceptions as a team. The Saints had the fewest with 12. In the pass happy 2016 season with about 5,000 more passes, the KC Chiefs lead the league with 18 INTs…6 teams had 10 or fewer grabs.

Clearly, the league favors passers more now than ever before; or at least in recent history.

Brady has been assisted by the expansion more than most as well. Three of the new franchises that found their way into the league are AFC teams, Houston, Cleveland and Jacksonville.

Houston is a -28 on 106 wins and 134 losses
Cleveland (who has NEVER won more than 10 games since reinstatement) is apparently -200 with 88 wins and 200 losses
Jacksonville are a -42: 155-197-0

You think Brady/NE has done well against these guys? You’re right 7 and 0 against the Jags, 6 and 1 against the Texans and 7 and 2 against the Browns (since 1999). Of course, expansion has a tendency to lower the barriers for entry. One could argue that he, a 6th round choice, benefitted from it as well. If the Jags, Panthers, and Browns not been there, 18 more players would have been on the board when Brady was selected…who is to say whether the Patriots had one of them ahead. Further…the AFC east competition for the Patriots has not exactly been a model of consistency. Miami has had 8 coaches since 2000, so has Buffalo. The Gents have had 5. Presumably, that is 21 different playbook, 21 different philosophies, lord knows how many different GMs, PPDs, and coordinators.

Again, let me stress, none of this is something that benefits Brady directly. It’s simply the environment he has prospered in and every other QB had essentially the same opportunity. Brady is great but it is hard to find another QB that has benefitted as much from the environment as TB—or one that has mercilessly dispatched his foes.

I try to avoid comparing statistics between era's. The game has changed significantly

I don't see any benefit from expansion. You still have to finish at the top of the heap....which Brady has done repeatedly
Montana had to beat 27 other teams, Brady had to beat 31 other teams (Vince Lombardi's Packers only had to beat 13 other teams)

So if you can't really compare statistics you have to look at:
Did they win championships?
Did they come up big in the clutch?

Both Brady and Montana did both. I give Brady a slight edge now, and hands down if he beats the Falcons

Brady and Montana have the same number of Super Bowl wins. Montana never lost a SB. I'm not sure how, by your stated metric, that would put Brady ahead. Montana would seem to be more "clutch" based on winning percentage in the big game and stats (no INT in his 4 SBs).

Either one of them are perfectly valid to argue as the best of the SB era.

So...let me get this straight

Montana gets credit for not even making it through the playoffs? He may have lost in the first round...but at least he didn't lose the Superbowl

No. I'm saying that if coming up big in the clutch is the deciding factor, Montana was better in the clutch. The ultimate expression of coming up big in the clutch would be play in the Super Bowl. Montana was better in his SB appearances than Brady. Montana never lost. Montana's worst QB rating in a SB was 100. Brady only bettered that twice, once by only 0.5. Montana never threw an INT in a SB. In the biggest game, Montana was pretty much the definition of clutch. Brady has been less so.

I don't consider looking just at Super Bowls to be an accurate way to judge a quarterback's career, but I'm going by the two criteria you stated.

You could also argue, using your criteria, that Terry Bradshaw was a better QB than Brady. Bradshaw also won 4 Super Bowls, and he had a better playoff win % than Brady, at .737 to .727.

I think SB wins and even playoff performances are only part of the picture when looking at a quarterback's career. Dan Marino never won a SB and I think he is rightly considered one of the greatest QBs ever. Peyton Manning was no better than an average playoff and SB QB, but he also should be considered when talking about the greatest ever. Trent Dilfer won a SB, but he most certainly should not be.

I have no problem with someone calling Brady the best of the SB era. For myself, I'm still on the fence about it.

Guys like Marino, Peyton and even Dan Fouts were great Fantasy Football QBs and put up great numbers. But when considering the GOAT, you gotta have some rings
Peyton won two rings but was not terribly impressive in either win. He is more remembered for getting to the playoffs with one of the best records in the league and then losing at home

I loved Joe Montana, one of the most clutch QBs ever. Even at Notre Dame, he had heart and would not quit. The game was never over as long as Joe had the ball and there was time on the clock
Brady has the same type of mentality. I just think that over the years, and he is now 40, he has eclipsed Montana

 

[LA RAM FAN]

if we are going to get into a SERIOUS discussion about the best coach of all time,well the best modern day coach of all time would be Bill Parcells.HE took TWO different teams to superbowls and three to the AFC title game.

Yeah I know Belicheat was his defensive coordinater but i have never denied he was a very good defensive coordinater,just not a good coach. I could not believe the propaganda the media was spinning when the cheats went on to their first superbowl saying Bill Belicheat turned the team around.Uh tom BRADY turned the team around.

I would not have been happy as i was that the pats won that superbowl back then had i known that game was rigged and the pats had the officials in their pockets.

Rams wide reciever issac bruce in that game said he had NEVER been in a game where the refs allowed the players to MUG him in a game like that and a former NFL official even stated it was the worst officiated game he had ever seen in his entire life saying he had seen high school games much better officiated so Brady has won ZERO superbowls,a fact patriot apologists dont want to hear since it proves how corrupt the NFL is and how they have the refs in their pockets.

they only lost to the Giants those two times cause it did not go the way they planned it to go as it does not sometimes.

so best modern day quarterback ever would be Parcells or maybe Mike Holmgren.HE also went to two different superbowls with two different teams.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I used to think Joe Montana was the greatest ever, but I'm wondering if Tom Brady is the best.

What do you think?

After they started cheating? Or before?

And how do you count the Seahawks game when NE was beaten but the Seattle coach choked?

you mean when pete the cheat threw the game for them and they did not earn it? that is why i say thank god the seahawks did not make the superbowl this year,at least THIS time the coach of the opposing team wont give it to them.

Simple -- Brady sucks -- that's why.

yep same as Belicheat.lol

 

[LA RAM FAN]

"Cheating Scandals Will Forever Tarnish the Brady-Belichick Legacy"

Cheating Scandals Will Forever Tarnish the Brady-Belichick Legacy

No he is not.

Indeed.you took the Brady apologists to school major big time there.
Shady Brady isnt even one of the top 10 best MODERN day quarterbacks in the superbowl era the fact that he has the home town refs in his pockets.

He cant win a PLAYOFF game on the road anymore cause he doesnt have the home town refs in his pockets.

Last time they did win a playoff game on the road came ten years ago against the chargers who had a coach named marty shittenheimer whos teams always went one and done in the playoffs with the chiefs and chargers. other than when he had Montana which of course is the greatest quarterback ever of all time in the modern era.
and for sure beyond a doubt,not even one of the two twenty of all time.

when you are involved in scandal after scandal you are a fraud.

Joe Montana is the greatest modern day quarterback in the superbowl era with the greatest of all time being Johnny Unitas.

the legitimate reasonable question for this thread title should be-Who is the greatest quarterback of all time in the modern era.Joe Montana,Terry Bradshaw,or John Elway?

Elway is a legit contender of those three because in the beginning when he first came into the league,he had no running game.no defense and had to carry the load all on his shoulders. I am not sure Montana or Bradshaw could have done that being under those circumstances elway was playing under.

For those who do not want to factor in all the information regarding Brady and just how he got his wins can keep their hero. It doe snot matter much...those fools would gladly fork over their hard earned dollars to an illusion.

In addition to the rules changes and the landscape of the ownership, the profit sharing schemes, public perception of the game and league.....and finally whether the QB and the team he plays for are cheaters.

All that and much more have to be figured in.


I would consider many QBs including those you mentioned over Brady.

In addition to the rules changes and the landscape of the ownership, the profit sharing schemes, public perception of the game and league.....and finally whether the QB and the team he plays for are cheaters.

All that and much more have to be figured in.

For those who do not want to factor in all the information regarding Brady and just how he got his wins can keep their hero. It doe snot matter much...those fools would gladly fork over their hard earned dollars to an illusion.


I would consider many QBs including those you mentioned over Brady.



you know,if all the posters that voted yes would actually listen to your informative posts you always make,they would see how you take them to school all the time on this issue.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I used to think Joe Montana was the greatest ever, but I'm wondering if Tom Brady is the best.

What do you think?

Remind us when he has 7 like Jimmy Johnson and Chad Knaus in the modern era.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I think Terry Bradshaw is still the all time greatest.

Brady and Montana have tied him but not exceeded him yet.

I am hoping Matt Ryan will squash Brady once and for all.

Naw Shady Brady doesnt count.He has not won four superbowls at all same way Barry Bonds is not the true all time home run king nor holds the record for the most home runs in a season since the one thing they both have in common is they are frauds that have disgraced both sports.

Remind us when he has 7 like Jimmy Johnson and Chad Knaus in the modern era.

how about when he wins his FIRST superbowl.lol

 

[rightwinger]

I used to think Joe Montana was the greatest ever, but I'm wondering if Tom Brady is the best.

What do you think?

Remind us when he has 7 like Jimmy Johnson and Chad Knaus in the modern era.

Jimmy Johnson can't throw the deep ball