The Mahomes Vs. Burrow Debate

[Sled21]

(06-22-2023, 08:51 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Brady is the only QB who has won more than 2 SBs in the salary cap era and Mahomes has reached 2 in 5 years of starting. You are vastly underrating how historically good and successful Mahomes has been to think that someone can just be pasted in his place and do not just equal to what he's accomplished, but better.

Judging Quarterbacks by number of Super Bowl wins is something people have done since there was a Super Bowl, and it has to be the stupidest measure of a QB ever. Football is a team sport and it takes a team to win or lose. Was Marino not a great QB because he never won? Rothlesberger won his first one as a result of his team running the ball and playing defense, his personal numbers sucked. If Mahomes didn't have a great team around him, he wouldn't have any. Likewise, if Burrow had a better right guard that could have held up A-aron Donald a fraction of a second more, he would already have a Super Bowl win. If Ossai doesn't hit Mahomes going out of bounds in the AFCCG, Burrow could have already played in back to back Super Bowls. SO judging how good a QB by Super Bowl wins is a stupid standard.

[*bfine32*]

(06-26-2023, 11:38 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Judging Quarterbacks by number of Super Bowl wins is something people have done since there was a Super Bowl, and it has to be the stupidest measure of a QB ever. Football is a team sport and it takes a team to win or lose. Was Marino not a great QB because he never won? Rothlesberger won his first one as a result of his team running the ball and playing defense, his personal numbers sucked. If Mahomes didn't have a great team around him, he wouldn't have any. Likewise, if Burrow had a better right guard that could have held up A-aron Donald a fraction of a second more, he would already have a Super Bowl win. If Ossai doesn't hit Mahomes going out of bounds in the AFCCG, Burrow could have already played in back to back Super Bowls. SO judging how good a QB by Super Bowl wins is a stupid standard.

So, you don't think we should consider Super Bowls when ranking Tom Brady against his peers? 

[BengalBob]

(06-26-2023, 11:38 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Judging Quarterbacks by number of Super Bowl wins is something people have done since there was a Super Bowl, and it has to be the stupidest measure of a QB ever. Football is a team sport and it takes a team to win or lose. Was Marino not a great QB because he never won? Rothlesberger won his first one as a result of his team running the ball and playing defense, his personal numbers sucked. If Mahomes didn't have a great team around him, he wouldn't have any. Likewise, if Burrow had a better right guard that could have held up A-aron Donald a fraction of a second more, he would already have a Super Bowl win. If Ossai doesn't hit Mahomes going out of bounds in the AFCCG, Burrow could have already played in back to back Super Bowls. SO judging how good a QB by Super Bowl wins is a stupid standard.

Rings matter, but it's not the only standard.

Montana and Bradshaw both 4-0 in Super Bowls.

Until Brady came along, Montana was considered the GOAT by many.  Bradshaw is NEVER mentioned among the greatest of all time.

[t3r3e3]

(06-26-2023, 11:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So, you don't think we should consider Super Bowls when ranking Tom Brady against his peers? 

Brady also has the career stats and consistently carried his teams after the first few Pats seasons. Other guys like Eli Manning and Bradshaw will live off the titles when they really weren’t leading the team.

[Joelist]

The Bengals are 3-1 against the Mahomes Chiefs and would be 4-0 absent the BAD officiating late in the AFCCG. Lest we forget….

Burrow hit several seconds after throwing - no flag.

Block in the back on punt return right in front of the refs - no flag

Two holds on the play with the PF - no flag

It was basically a prime example of “home cooking”.

[KillerGoose]

(06-26-2023, 12:58 PM)t3r3e3 Wrote: Brady also has the career stats and consistently carried his teams after the first few Pats seasons.  Other guys like Eli Manning and Bradshaw will live off the titles when they really weren’t leading the team.

One thing to keep in mind about guys like Bradshaw is that they played in a very, very different time. We look back at his numbers now and think they aren't impressive but he did quite well for his time. He won an NFL MVP, got a first team AP, was a two time Super Bowl MVP with four Super Bowl rings overall, and was a three time Pro-Bowler. If you era adjust his numbers, an average season for Bradshaw in modern terms would have been 4,196 yards, 30 TDs and 14 INTs if you give him league average volume. Roughly a 92 QB rating. I think looking at it from this perspective helps. I don't think it is the strongest resume, but he was a good QB for his time and has impressive accolades to his name. 

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(06-26-2023, 01:20 PM)Joelist Wrote: The Bengals are 3-1 against the Mahomes Chiefs and would be 4-0 absent the BAD officiating late in the AFCCG. Lest we forget….

Burrow hit several seconds after throwing - no flag.

Block in the back on punt return right in front of the refs - no flag

Two holds on the play with the PF - no flag

It was basically a prime example of “home cooking”.

Yes, time to make these games a little less close so the refs cannot influence the outcome. We still have the Mahomes/Chiefs number.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-26-2023, 11:38 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Judging Quarterbacks by number of Super Bowl wins is something people have done since there was a Super Bowl, and it has to be the stupidest measure of a QB ever.

(06-26-2023, 12:58 PM)t3r3e3 Wrote: Brady also has the career stats and consistently carried his teams after the first few Pats seasons.  Other guys like Eli Manning and Bradshaw will live off the titles when they really weren’t leading the team.

Ehhh...


Brady: 64.3% Completion
Rodgers: 65.3% Completion

Brady: 5.4 TD% / 1.8 INT%
Rodgers: 6.2 TD% / 1.4 INT%

Brady: 7.4 YPA
Rodgers: 7.7 YPA

Brady: 97.2 QB Rating
Rodgers: 103.6 QB Rating

Brady: 3x All-Pro
Rodgers: 4x All-Pro

Brady: 3 MVPs
Rodgers: 4 MVPs

Rodgers is better than Brady in pretty much every statistic despite playing almost exclusively in the same timeframe, but I don't think I have ever seen anyone claim Rodgers is the greatest QB of all time or better than Brady. Why? Because Brady has 7 rings and Rodgers has 1.

Rings matter.

[Soonerpeace]

(06-26-2023, 11:38 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Judging Quarterbacks by number of Super Bowl wins is something people have done since there was a Super Bowl, and it has to be the stupidest measure of a QB ever. Football is a team sport and it takes a team to win or lose. Was Marino not a great QB because he never won? Rothlesberger won his first one as a result of his team running the ball and playing defense, his personal numbers sucked. If Mahomes didn't have a great team around him, he wouldn't have any. Likewise, if Burrow had a better right guard that could have held up A-aron Donald a fraction of a second more, he would already have a Super Bowl win. If Ossai doesn't hit Mahomes going out of bounds in the AFCCG, Burrow could have already played in back to back Super Bowls. SO judging how good a QB by Super Bowl wins is a stupid standard.

I agree with you. TheLeonardLeap’s logic Bart Starr would be number 2 because he won 2 straight by a large margin. Patrick Mahomes is definitely the best right now and doesn’t look to relinquish it.

[KillerGoose]

(06-26-2023, 02:25 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: I agree with you. TheLeonardLeap’s logic Bart Starr would be number 2 because he won 2 straight by a large margin. Patrick Mahomes is definitely the best right now and doesn’t look to relinquish it.

Not quite. Bart Starr was quite a bit before the salary cap era. 

[Murdock2420]

People had this same debate about Manning and Brady.

Manning had more arm talent or Brady had better surrounding casts and better coaching or etc, etc. And with all the excuses and siding against Brady the guy has more rings then anyone sadly.

In the end, there is one thing that truly measures a QB and that is sadly titles. It is why Bradshaw is in the HoF and Kenny Anderson is sitting on the outside.

Burrow is clutch and the team and fans are lucky to have him, but right now Mahomes is the guy until Burrow wins a title.

[Hammerstripes]

Right now there really isn't a debate. Until Burrow wins a Super Bowl, you can't really put him on that level.

That being said, there is no way in the world I would trade him for Mahomes.

[*bfine32*]

(06-26-2023, 02:25 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: I agree with you. TheLeonardLeap’s logic Bart Starr would be number 2 because he won 2 straight by a large margin. Patrick Mahomes is definitely the best right now and doesn’t look to relinquish it.

Actually, wouldn't Joe Montana be #2 if you went by Super Bowls? And there's a case he was the GOAT before Brady.

No one saying Super Bowl wins are the only criteria but using them to build the case is not "silly". 

Ask yourself this: Jim Kelly went to 4 straight Super Bowls would he be considered a greater QB if he had won 4 in a row? 

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(06-25-2023, 01:24 AM)Housh Wrote: I’m taking Burrow in a clean pocket 10/10 days. Im taking Mahommes if my line sucks.


I think Mahommes would’ve won that Super Bowl against the Rams.


But on the Flip side i think 2022 Burrow would’ve beaten Tom Brady’s Bucks that Pat lost to so it’s a wash for me honestly.

Patrick Mahomes played with a bad o-line once(Super Bowl loss to Tampa), and if you didn't know, just watch any Chiefs related podcast because it gets brought up two or three times an episode. They lost both starting tackles in the AFCCG and put up a whopping 9 points in the Super Bowl.

So if your line sucks, you're taking Mahomes . . . but in the only game that Mahomes had a bad o-line, you think Burrow wins.
Got it!

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-26-2023, 03:31 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: People had this same debate about Manning and Brady.

Manning had more arm talent or Brady had better surrounding casts and better coaching or etc, etc. And with all the excuses and siding against Brady the guy has more rings then anyone sadly.

In the end, there is one thing that truly measures a QB and that is sadly titles. It is why Bradshaw is in the HoF and Kenny Anderson is sitting on the outside.

Burrow is clutch and the team and fans are lucky to have him, but right now Mahomes is the guy until Burrow wins a title.

Yeah but Mahomes doesn't just have the rings, he has the numbers too. Kind of silly to try and say Joe is even as good, let along better, right now. If Joe had the numbers and Pat had the rings, sure. But that ain't the case yet. 

[Soonerpeace]

(06-26-2023, 04:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually, wouldn't Joe Montana be #2 if you went by Super Bowls? And there's a case he was the GOAT before Brady.

No one saying Super Bowl wins are the only criteria but using them to build the case is not "silly". 

Ask yourself this: Jim Kelly went to 4 straight Super Bowls would he be considered a greater QB if he had won 4 in a row? 

I agree with that. Hey I said Mahomes is better than Burrow because he does have the trophies. But I also think if KC had 3 OL out against us they’d both have one. I think this year provided injuries don’t interfere with either team will have it more equal. Mahomes creates big plays better under distress. But 3-1 is 3-1 head to head and that has to account for something

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(06-26-2023, 05:21 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Yeah but Mahomes doesn't just have the rings, he has the numbers too. Kind of silly to try and say Joe is even as good, let along better, right now. If Joe had the numbers and Pat had the rings, sure. But that ain't the case yet. 

If the Bears take Mahomes instead of Trubisky, do you honestly think that we'd be having this conversation right now? I don't.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-26-2023, 05:27 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: If the Bears take Mahomes instead of Trubisky, do you honestly think that we'd be having this conversation right now? I don't.

Well, did you think the Bengals were going to be in the SB with Burrow when they just finished going 6-25-1 the 2 years before? Or did you even see them going 22-11 and winning multiple playoff games each year?

I doubt it.

If Burrow could do it with the Bengals, why couldn't Mahomes do it with Chicago?

[Soonerpeace]

(06-26-2023, 05:47 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Well, did you think the Bengals were going to be in the SB with Burrow when they just finished going 6-25-1 the 2 years before? Or did you even see them going 22-11 and winning multiple playoff games each year?

I doubt it.

If Burrow could do it with the Bengals, why couldn't Mahomes do it with Chicago?

Hard to know. Mahomes sat a year and took over a 12-4 team and in his third year buoyed by 2 home run rookie linemen and 2 big time free agents in the OL he won a SB. Certainly if the pieces were in place he’d have sure helped the Bears.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-26-2023, 06:07 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: Hard to know. Mahomes sat a year and took over a 12-4 team and in his third year buoyed by 2 home run rookie linemen and 2 big time free agents in the OL he won a SB. Certainly if the pieces were in place he’d have sure helped the Bears.

Chances are pretty obviously good that he would have helped them tremendously. His talent isn't questionable.