Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How is it possible to have 2 GOATs?
#1
I just wanted to complain. NFL.com has a story about the new Madden cover and it has both Mahomes and Brady on it. It's not possible to have 2 people be THE greatest of all time. Is this not idiotic? Am I missing something?
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#2
Cover of Madden doesn't mean GOAT, it means best in the league last season.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]

Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations

-Frank Booth 1/9/23
Reply/Quote
#3
I don’t really care about the madden cover. They can have five players on there for all I care. But they say ‘The two Goats’. How is it possible to have two quarterbacks that are the greatest of all time? I don’t really care about the GOAT debate either. It’s obviously Brady, but that doesn’t matter. I just don’t understand from a logical point of view how you can have two quarterbacks that are the greatest of all time. It doesn’t make any sense. You can certainly have multiple quarterbacks that are in the conversation, but you can’t say Brady is the greatest, and simultaneously say Mahomes is the greatest. But maybe they see the GOAT talk in the same light as ‘the worlds number 1 dad’ coffee mugs or t shirts. There’s a good Seinfeld episode on this topic by the way. Lol
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#4
The media has really been trying to push Brady off his pedestal for Mahomes lately. I understand Mahomes has had a tremendous start to his career, but to put him in that convo already is disrespectful not only to Brady, but also other legends like Montana, Elway, Unitas, Peyton, Brees and even Aaron Rodgers.

Tbh, stats these days mean little to me, because clearly rule changes have had a major impact on pass defense...hence why a 90.0 passer rating is now sub-par. So it's going to take a dynasty and a decade+ of dominating his peers to even begin to enter that convo.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
Reply/Quote
#5
(06-21-2021, 12:28 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: The media has really been trying to push Brady off his pedestal for Mahomes lately. I understand Mahomes has had a tremendous start to his career, but to put him in that convo already is disrespectful not only to Brady, but also other legends like Montana, Elway, Unitas, Peyton, Brees and even Aaron Rodgers.

Tbh, stats these days mean little to me, because clearly rule changes have had a major impact on pass defense...hence why a 90.0 passer rating is now sub-par. So it's going to take a dynasty and a decade+ of dominating his peers to even begin to enter that convo.

I agree. Mahomes had his chance to upstage Brady last year. He didn't. He had a chance to close the Super Bowl win gap. He failed. In my mind he has his work cut out for him. What does Brady have? 6 super bowls? Mahomes has 1. If that total was 2 to 5 and Mahomes beat Brady in a Super Bowl, he would be in the conversation for sure. As it stands he has a ton of ground to make up. And he needs to beat him in a Super Bowl heads up to make up for his loss--and awful showing.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#6
(06-17-2021, 01:52 PM)Bengalstripes9 Wrote: I just wanted to complain. NFL.com has a story about the new Madden cover and it has both Mahomes and Brady on it. It's not possible to have 2 people be THE greatest of all time. Is this not idiotic? Am I missing something?

people dont understand what G.O.A.T. stands for.
Reply/Quote
#7
It depends on how you define "greatest". It's inherently subjective, so I have no problem will multiple goats.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#8
(06-23-2021, 12:42 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: It depends on how you define "greatest". It's inherently subjective, so I have no problem will multiple goats.

There can only be one "greatest ever". Otherwise, one of the so-called "goats" isn't the greatest. Different people can have different opinions, of course, but one person can't think 2 players were the greatest to ever do it. Greatest implies singular.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
Reply/Quote
#9
(06-28-2021, 03:32 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: There can only be one "greatest ever". Otherwise, one of the so-called "goats" isn't the greatest. Different people can have different opinions, of course, but one person can't think 2 players were the greatest to ever do it. Greatest implies singular.

you could have Greatest of Eras etc.. But Greatest of All Time   = G.O.A.T.    is like the highlander  there can be only 1  
Reply/Quote
#10
Unless time has just stopped altogether and we're all dead "the greatest of all time" means absolutely nothing unless football as a game is completely disbanded and never played again forever.
So if they're still playing football in the year 2525, if man is still alive, if woman can survive you may find.. nobody will remember the name Tom Brady..~Zagger and Evans
I think that was one of the verses.. Maybe not.
In the immortal words of my old man, "Wait'll you get to be my age!"

Chicago sounds rough to the maker of verse, but the one comfort we have is Cincinnati sounds worse. ~Oliver Wendal Holmes Sr.


[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#11
I don’t care what numbers either one of them finish with, you can’t compare eras, ESPECIALLY, with the defensive rules changes.

A guy like Montana played under a set of rules which gave the defense pretty much ‘anything goes’!

TB is the greatest in HIS time, just like Montana was the greatest in HIS time, and Otto Graham was the greatest in HIS time!

These ‘talking heads’ and anybody who pays any attention to them need to give it a rest!
Reply/Quote
#12
(06-29-2021, 04:25 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: you could have Greatest of Eras etc.. But Greatest of All Time   = G.O.A.T.    is like the highlander  there can be only 1  

Well, you could have one at every position, but there is no arguing Brady is the GOAT Quarterback, and anybody that wants to arfgue that needs to win 7 Super Bowls and as many Conference Championships as he has. (I won't include Division Titles, because that Division was weak for years.)
Reply/Quote
#13
(08-20-2021, 03:11 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Well, you could have one at every position, but there is no arguing Brady is the GOAT Quarterback, and anybody that wants to arfgue that needs to win 7 Super Bowls and as many Conference Championships as he has. (I won't include Division Titles, because that Division was weak for years.)

Hogwash! Opinions are like elbows, everyone has one. He played in an era where they coddle the QBs defensively, and played in one of the weakest divisions in the NFL, for one of the greatest coaches of his time, who went 11-5 with Matt Cassel at the helm, who couldn’t even make it as a legitimate starter for any other team!

Graham won 7 championships in 10 years in an era where the defense was allowed to rip the QBs head off!
Reply/Quote
#14
(08-20-2021, 02:13 PM)bengalguy71 Wrote: I don’t care what numbers either one of them finish with, you can’t compare eras, ESPECIALLY, with the defensive rules changes.

A guy like Montana played under a set of rules which gave the defense pretty much ‘anything goes’!

TB is the greatest in HIS time, just like Montana was the greatest in HIS time, and Otto Graham was the greatest in HIS time!

These ‘talking heads’ and anybody who pays any attention to them need to give it a rest!

I would argue that for the first half of Brady's career, he played when the defense had free rein as well. Yet, he won just about half of his super bowls in that era. 

I just don't think there's ever been a quarterback that came close to having the success he's had in terms of winning 7 super bowls. I don't think any of those quarterbacks that won 3 or 4 super bowls brought their team back from down 21 points in a super bowl to win against a much better team then his. 

In all honestly, I use to not care for Brady much. But after watching him will his team to come back against the Falcons I couldn't help but be amazed/impressed with the guy. He is beyond great. Clutch. Nerves of steel. And a great person. People love to hate him though. 
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#15
(08-20-2021, 10:50 PM)Bengalstripes9 Wrote: I would argue that for the first half of Brady's career, he played when the defense had free rein as well. Yet, he won just about half of his super bowls in that era. 

I just don't think there's ever been a quarterback that came close to having the success he's had in terms of winning 7 super bowls. I don't think any of those quarterbacks that won 3 or 4 super bowls brought their team back from down 21 points in a super bowl to win against a much better team then his. 

In all honestly, I use to not care for Brady much. But after watching him will his team to come back against the Falcons I couldn't help but be amazed/impressed with the guy. He is beyond great. Clutch. Nerves of steel. And a great person. People love to hate him though. 

There is no comparison between 80s football and 2000's football.

Montana got his brains beat in every Sunday. If you don't believe me, just go look up a highlight reel of hits Montana took, and compare it to hits Brady took. Brady has been pampered in comparison.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
Reply/Quote
#16
(08-21-2021, 03:53 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: There is no comparison between 80s football and 2000's football.

Montana got his brains beat in every Sunday. If you don't believe me, just go look up a highlight reel of hits Montana took, and compare it to hits Brady took. Brady has been pampered in comparison.

I disagree. Maybe in terms of coverage, but QB protections didn’t start coming in until later in the 2000s.

https://youtu.be/M4OTH0pddv4

Brady was nearly decapitated there and nobody batted an eye. That’d be a flag now, but it was normal back then. Early 2000’s football was still very physical and full of heavy hits. The league was still very physical with QBs until Palmer and Brady both tore their ACLs. Rule changes started coming into play more then.
Reply/Quote
#17
(08-21-2021, 05:04 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I disagree. Maybe in terms of coverage, but QB protections didn’t start coming in until later in the 2000s.

https://youtu.be/M4OTH0pddv4

Brady was nearly decapitated there and nobody batted an eye. That’d be a flag now, but it was normal back then. Early 2000’s football was still very physical and full of heavy hits. The league was still very physical with QBs until Palmer and Brady both tore their ACLs. Rule changes started coming into play more then.

You're free to disagree, but you're wrong. Here's a list of *some* of the biggest rule changes that protected QBs over the last 25 years. Montana benefitted from only one of these rule changes, and that was only for his last 2 years.

Brady benefitted from all of these rules, and many of them were implemented either before he started playing, or just a few years into his career.

https://www.insidehook.com/article/sports/nfl-rule-changes-created-golden-era-quarterback-stats
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
Reply/Quote
#18
(08-21-2021, 05:52 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: You're free to disagree, but you're wrong. Here's a list of *some* of the biggest rule changes that protected QBs over the last 25 years. Montana benefitted from only one of these rule changes, and that was only for his last 2 years.

Brady benefitted from all of these rules, and many of them were implemented either before he started playing, or just a few years into his career.

https://www.insidehook.com/article/sports/nfl-rule-changes-created-golden-era-quarterback-stats

You may be right in terms of what the players could get away with. But we saw some elite level defenses in the early 2000s carry their teams to super bowls. The Ravens were one of those teams, just a couple years before Brady won his first super bowl. It wasn't until closer to the 2010s the rules really started favoring the offenses. And we didn't see the worst of it until a few years ago. 

You can get into the whole 'comparing eras' debate if you want to. The bottom line is 7 rings. Bradshaw, Montana, etc. had good enough teams to win 7, but didn't. Brady's teams were best during his first couple super bowls. The last 2 or 3 super bowls with the Patriots his team would have been average without him. Case in point is how much they fell off from his last year with the team and what the Pats did with Cam a year ago.
They just aren't the same team without Brady. Then he goes and turns a perennial loser of a team into a Super Bowl winner in one offseason/year. He not only attracts good talent to come join him, but he elevates those around him. And name a QB that played through a season with a ligament tear in his knee to win a Super Bowl. There's just so much evidence in his favor. Name a QB to lead his team from down 21 in a Super Bowl to win. Etc. Name a QB to win 7 Super Bowls. 

It'd be nice to see Burrow have a fraction of the success Brady has had.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#19
(08-21-2021, 05:52 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: You're free to disagree, but you're wrong. Here's a list of *some* of the biggest rule changes that protected QBs over the last 25 years. Montana benefitted from only one of these rule changes, and that was only for his last 2 years.

Brady benefitted from all of these rules, and many of them were implemented either before he started playing, or just a few years into his career.

https://www.insidehook.com/article/sports/nfl-rule-changes-created-golden-era-quarterback-stats

What you just said, along with that list, is agreeing with what I said. I said early 2000s football was still very physical and protections didn’t start coming until later in the 2000s, specifically after Palmer and Brady tore their ACLs.

Only three of those rule changes occurred before the early 2000s and many of those changes occurred after….Palmer and Brady tore their ACLs.
Reply/Quote
#20
(08-21-2021, 06:12 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: What you just said, along with that list, is agreeing with what I said. I said early 2000s football was still very physical and protections didn’t start coming until later in the 2000s, specifically after Palmer and Brady tore their ACLs.

Only three of those rule changes occurred before the early 2000s and many of those changes occurred after….Palmer and Brady tore their ACLs.

Are you trying to win an argument? Or get to the truth here? Because the truth is this:

The original statement was that defenses in Montana's era were more physical. You then tried to focus on early 2000s defenses, as if Brady hasn't played most of his career after his knee injury.

Even playing by your made up rule, saying 2000-2008 defenses were just as physical as 1980s defenses simply isn't true when you actually acknowledge the facts I presented you.

The 3 rules you reference were huge rule changes bud. Especially the change to intentional grounding. That one alone is massive. The other 2 were big changes as well. In total, there were 5 big changes to protect QBs BEFORE Brady's knee injury.

Have some grace and bow out. Or at least have the decency to admit I have a big point here. Sheesh.

Early 2000s looks like actual football compared to NOW, of course...but they were already placing rules to start protecting QBs at that point, and it wasn't as brutal as the 70s or 80s.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
Reply/Quote





Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)