Is Brady unquestionably the best ever?

[Jpoore]

(02-17-2017, 11:19 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: It felt like Peyton was creeping into the discussion just a couple years ago, but Brady getting one for his thumb will unfortunately overshadow anything Peyton did. Personally, I think if all things were equal, Peyton was far better. You could literally throw Peyton on any team, and that team would at least make the playoffs. I really don't feel that way about Brady. Tom benefited greatly from his situation. Just imagine if Peyton played his entire career for Belichick...

yeah at least 8-10 imo. Bellechick is the greatest coach of all time. He has the greatest scheme in all 3 phases of the game. Brady meanwhile his last 2 Superbowl wins should have an asterisk next to them. If beast mode gets the ball at the .00001 inch line seahawks win. If falcons run the ball 3 times and kick a fg falcons win. See a pattern here? Brady really shouldn't have won a sb in 15 years. 

[Shake n Blake]

(02-18-2017, 08:39 AM)Jpoore Wrote: yeah at least 8-10 imo. Bellechick is the greatest coach of all time. He has the greatest scheme in all 3 phases of the game. Brady meanwhile his last 2 Superbowl wins should have an asterisk next to them. If beast mode gets the ball at the .00001 inch line seahawks win. If falcons run the ball 3 times and kick a fg falcons win. See a pattern here? Brady really shouldn't have won a sb in 15 years. 

Yeah it's funny how all of Brady's biggest success will be at the beginning and end of his career. From 2005 on through 2013 (9 seasons), he was a kinda human 9-8 in the playoffs, 0-2 in the Super Bowl, and had a couple one-n-dones mixed in. You're right. If not for 2 undeniable coaching blunders, Brady probably doesn't have a ring since 2004. Back in the spygate days.

[HarleyDog]

Brady couldn't win here.

[ElkValleyBengal]

I will always maintain Manning was better than Brady. If titles are your only thing then Otto Graham is the G.O.A.T.- as has previously been mentioned.

[Pape]

(02-19-2017, 03:58 AM)ElkValleyBengal Wrote: I will always maintain Manning was better than Brady.  If titles are your only thing then Otto Graham is the G.O.A.T.- as has previously been mentioned.

And four of the Graham titles were from '46-'49, when the Browns were part of the AAFC. Only 3 of Otto Grahams championships came in the NFL. And it was also Paul Brown schooling the rest of the AAFC on what football meant.

[phil413]

I mean I ran out of excuses for Brady to not be the greatest, he is. He just takes over and destroys people, he probably going to win it all again and that shouldnt happen in this era and CBA. Consider that he was one of the two "we've arrived" moments in the last quarter century of Cincy fans. One was Warrick's punt return out of the dark ages to knock off the undefeated Chiefs. Th other was the DL batting down balls in a monsoon to brat Brady. He's that good, it was our defining moment and it took God's intervention to stop yet another Brady comeback.

[XenoMorph]

(02-19-2017, 03:58 AM)ElkValleyBengal Wrote: I will always maintain Manning was better than Brady.  If titles are your only thing then Otto Graham is the G.O.A.T.- as has previously been mentioned.

Manning was king in the regular season...

Tom Brady owns the Post season.....

tom brady is the best ever in this era... at least...

[XenoMorph]

(02-18-2017, 08:39 AM)Jpoore Wrote: yeah at least 8-10 imo. Bellechick is the greatest coach of all time. He has the greatest scheme in all 3 phases of the game. Brady meanwhile his last 2 Superbowl wins should have an asterisk next to them. If beast mode gets the ball at the .00001 inch line seahawks win. If falcons run the ball 3 times and kick a fg falcons win. See a pattern here? Brady really shouldn't have won a sb in 15 years. 

cant asterisk brady cause the other teams coach is stupid.

[Murdock2420]

The biggest issue with any debate about the G.O.A.T. is that you can't compare evenly at all across the eras. I've said this in another thread about this topic, that Brady in any other era is a scrub who doesn't last more than a few seasons. Prior to this modern era, QBs would get just mugged after throwing the ball and WRs going across the middle were absolutely destroyed. Brady can not function when he is being hit, he pouts and looks for the flag every time he is touched. So, put him in Montana's era and he isn't even remembered.

Now, flip the script. Put Joe Montana, Dan Marino, Bart Starr, etc, etc, etc....into this modern era. Let them know that their WRs can't be touched after 5 yards. Let them know, once they throw the ball away no one may touch them, and they can't be hit high or low. Give them WRs who can run across the middle with no fear.

It's a laughable debate. If you give the modern rules to the guys who were doing amazing things when it was actually hard to do, they blow Tommy boy's accomplishments away.

He plays in the perfect system, for a great coach, and there is some "shady" stuff with the spygates and others things. That's the perfect recipe. The guy has talent, but on pretty much any other team, with any other coach and definitely in other eras, he's average at best.

[Pape]

(03-09-2017, 11:58 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: Now, flip the script. Put Joe Montana, Dan Marino, Bart Starr, etc, etc, etc....into this modern era. Let them know that their WRs can't be touched after 5 yards. Let them know, once they throw the ball away no one may touch them, and they can't be hit high or low. Give them WRs who can run across the middle with no fear.

You do realize the 5 yard Chuck Rule was put into the NFL in 1978, right? The enforcement has been nconsistent, but its been there for almost 30 years now. It covered Montana, Marino, Young, Favre, Elway, Esiason, etc.

and you can argue all you want about rules etc and different eras, but come on, Brady has led the Patriots to 7 Super Bowls, and has won 5 of them. 5 freakin Super Bowls. He also authored a 16-0 regular season. All with a bunch of, with the exception of a few star names, a bunch of players most teams would describe as "depth". He makes players better. To say he would be no more than average on another team is disingenuous at best.

[Murdock2420]

(03-10-2017, 06:07 PM)Pape Wrote: You do realize the 5 yard Chuck Rule was put into the NFL in 1978, right? The enforcement has been nconsistent, but its been there for almost 30 years now. It covered Montana, Marino, Young, Favre, Elway, Esiason, etc.

and you can argue all you want about rules etc and different eras, but come on, Brady has led the Patriots to 7 Super Bowls, and has won 5 of them. 5 freakin Super Bowls. He also authored a 16-0 regular season. All with a bunch of, with the exception of a few star names, a bunch of players most teams would describe as "depth". He makes players better. To say he would be no more than average on another team is disingenuous at best.

The 5 yard chuck rule might have been around, but as you said, it was not enforced at all, and certainly not like it is today.

And I stand by my statement, he wouldn't survive in any other era. He can not, I repeat, he can not take being hit at all. He benefits from the rules of don't touch his head, don't go low, hell if your hand slaps the helmet it is 15 yards now...that is just pathetic. If he was on a team that didn't have the scheme the Pats do, he would be average. 

You say he elevates players, I say the system in New England elevates players and coaches. Matt Cassel 11-5 in New England, leaves and sucks. It's an amazing trend to watch. 

How many guys have left New England and had even close to the same level of success...I can't think of a single player. Brady would be no different. He'd be good...middle of the pack Andy Dalton, like...which is exactly what average is.

[Pape]

He couldn't survive back then? Please, that's just a stupid statement with no basis in fact or reality. The players now are bigger, stronger and faster, and yes they hit harder. Defensive ends are as big as or bigger than the old defensive tackles, you have ends now who are faster than linebackers of the "day" etc.

Too much is made of the "old" days. Its just been romanticized in everyone's memories. But really look up some of the old games online, and look at the play. It just doesn't measure up speed wise, power wise, etc to whats happening on the field today.

And no qb likes getting hit, and they all have issues when they have defensive linemen in their face. Lets not pretend that its just Brady who doesn't like that.

[Jpoore]

(03-09-2017, 11:19 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: cant asterisk brady cause the other teams coach is stupid.

But you cant give him credit for those superbowls. His last legit superbowl win is 2004.

[Murdock2420]

(03-10-2017, 07:36 PM)Pape Wrote: He couldn't survive back then? Please, that's just a stupid statement with no basis in fact or reality. The players now are bigger, stronger and faster, and yes they hit harder. Defensive ends are as big as or bigger than the old defensive tackles, you have ends now who are faster than linebackers of the "day" etc.

Too much is made of the "old" days. Its just been romanticized in everyone's memories. But really look up some of the old games online, and look at the play. It just doesn't measure up speed wise, power wise, etc to whats happening on the field today.

And no qb likes getting hit, and they all have issues when they have defensive linemen in their face. Lets not pretend that its just Brady who doesn't like that.

Sigh...a stupid statement?? It is actually based on something called reality. 

This is how the QB's before Tom Brady and the tuck rule...and the don't hit them low rule and don't hit them in the head rule all existed. 





Tom Brady is soft. Every single time he is touched, he lays on the ground and looks to the refs for a flag. He can get sacked, ball in hand, and still wants a flag for being touched. 

As for this "bigger, stronger, faster" statement. Ummm...news flash. So are the WRs and the Offensive linemen and...oh...so are the QBs themselves. It's not like only the defensive players have magically been getting bigger...all the NFL players are, so that argument is invalid. The guys hitting Montana, or Bradshaw or Unitas were bigger than them, same way the guys hitting modern QBs are bigger than them. 

The scale is the same.

Doesn't measure up to the speed....yes...on both sides...so, once again advantage modern QBs who have faster targets, who can jump higher, and are not allowed to be touched. The actually enforce those rules now, unlike the old days when the game was built on defense.

Prior to this Manning/Brady era, teams won Championships based on defense, and now the rules are slanted so that teams win based off of high powered offense. That doesn't mean the QBs are better, it point blank means the rules now favor the offense.

Read any article written about the game by anyone who has basic knowledge of the game and the say "Today's game completely favors the offense." 

To say Brady is the G.O.A.T. is like saying Barry Bonds is truly the HR king. The game changes, and favors offense. 

No QB likes getting hit?? Really? While most don't like getting hit late, guys like Ben, and Rodgers and Cam Newton and Russel Wilson all seem to really thrive against the blitz, even Andy Dalton does better against the blitz. Brady is a system QB. The way that system is run, Mark Sanchez could win a Super Bowl.

Like I said, I'm not saying Brady isn't talented, you don't become a starting NFL QB without talent, but take away his coach and that system and he doesn't have a ring and he is a middle of the pack QB.

[Pape]

(03-14-2017, 01:15 AM)Murdock2420 Wrote: Sigh...a stupid statement?? It is actually based on something called reality. 

This is how the QB's before Tom Brady and the tuck rule...and the don't hit them low rule and don't hit them in the head rule all existed. 

Yes, stupid, very stupid. The quarterbacks today take as many hard shots as the qb's did back then. They dont take them to the head, but

Tom Brady is soft. Every single time he is touched, he lays on the ground and looks to the refs for a flag. He can get sacked, ball in hand, and still wants a flag for being touched. 
oh please.

As for this "bigger, stronger, faster" statement. Ummm...news flash. So are the WRs and the Offensive linemen and...oh...so are the QBs themselves. It's not like only the defensive players have magically been getting bigger...all the NFL players are, so that argument is invalid. The guys hitting Montana, or Bradshaw or Unitas were bigger than them, same way the guys hitting modern QBs are bigger than them. 

The scale is the same.
Force = mass x velocity. Its a scientific fact. Look it up. The scale isn't the same because the hitters are the ones applying the force, but then again i dont expect you to understand.... its that "stupid" thing

Doesn't measure up to the speed....yes...on both sides...so, once again advantage modern QBs who have faster targets, who can jump higher, and are not allowed to be touched. The actually enforce those rules now, unlike the old days when the game was built on defense.
Tell that to any wr/te/rb who has caught a pass over the middle... again, you are full of crap

Prior to this Manning/Brady era, teams won Championships based on defense, and now the rules are slanted so that teams win based off of high powered offense. That doesn't mean the QBs are better, it point blank means the rules now favor the offense.
The game changes, the rules change, you cannot lay that on Brady. He plays within the framework of the game.

Read any article written about the game by anyone who has basic knowledge of the game and the say "Today's game completely favors the offense." 

To say Brady is the G.O.A.T. is like saying Barry Bonds is truly the HR king. The game changes, and favors offense. 

No QB likes getting hit?? Really? While most don't like getting hit late, guys like Ben, and Rodgers and Cam Newton and Russel Wilson all seem to really thrive against the blitz, even Andy Dalton does better against the blitz. Brady is a system QB. The way that system is run, Mark Sanchez could win a Super Bowl.
Dumbass wonk, teams rarely blitz Brady because he burns them when they do. Just another point indicating you don't know wtf you are talking about when it comes to Brady.

Like I said, I'm not saying Brady isn't talented, you don't become a starting NFL QB without talent, but take away his coach and that system and he doesn't have a ring and he is a middle of the pack QB.
Cream rises. Brady is driven to compete and win. You have spent way too long following a team who thinks achieving "average" is what the game is about. Brady/Belichick are the rare paring of a coach and quarter back that we see only once in a great while. Right now they are the best. Brady the GOAT qb, Belichick, the GOAT coach.

[Murdock2420]

I didn't want to look at some giant wall of text full of no arguments just someone being pissy and calling me stupid. That's usually what happens when you have no valid argument, so you just name call and try to talk big.

As for the stupid stuff...not so much kid, left my career and radio in got a job as a Biologist after earning a Master's Degree in Animal Biology, so...yeah..not so much.

What is 100% clear is that you are biased towards Brady, which is weird for someone claiming to be a Bengals fan, but it is what it is.

Another obvious fact is that nothing will get you to see the flawed logic of all this and your belief that Brady is some mythical creature...he is not.

What should also be completely obvious is that I don't think he is anything more than an average QB that fell into the perfect system with the best coach around and has had great success.

With all that being said, there is really no point to discuss this any further as neither of us will be changing out opinions on this matter, run along back to the Patriots message board now.

[Pape]

1) that wall of text was yours, i provided short succinct answers, which can be easily seen because they are blue.

1a) stupid as stupid does; and if you did get a degree in animal biology then you should have understood what I meant regarding the size, speed and force of the current NFL player compared to those who played in the 70's 80's and 90's.

2) i have never claimed to be a bengal fan.

3) i am biased towards Brady, without a doubt.

4) Average at best, huh? see point 1a.

5) I think I will stay here for awhile. God knows if you represent the current level of football knowledge, I could only benefit these boards.

[Murdock2420]

(03-15-2017, 01:15 PM)Pape Wrote: 1) that wall of text was yours, i provided short succinct answers, which can be easily seen because they are blue.

1a) stupid as stupid does; and if you did get a degree in animal biology then you should have understood what I meant regarding the size, speed and force of the current NFL player compared to those who played in the 70's 80's and 90's.

2) i have never claimed to be a bengal fan.

3) i am biased towards Brady, without a doubt.

4) Average at best, huh? see point 1a.

5) I think I will stay here for awhile. God knows if you represent the current level of football knowledge, I could only benefit these boards.

When you have a bias and you admit it, it lessens the position of all your arguments. Should know that.... at this point, you can sit around and talk to yourself as much as you want. I'm not going to waste more time talking to someone who has homer vision at an All-Madden level.

Yes...speed and size of NFL players is so very important when caring for penguins... seriously dude...the **** kind of failed logic is that??? I understood your point, I just don't agree with it. Remember...the guys playing now have to slow up to avoid hitting the head, or hitting after the ball is gone. The violent hits that made the highlight reels...they don't happen anymore. Richard Dent never slowed down, and outweighed Montana by 65 lbs...you can look it up 200 to 265. When Elvis Dumervil (255 lbs by the way..so much for bigger) hits Brady (225 lbs) and he has to slow up to avoid illegal contact...yeah that force isn't the same.

Brady would be average anywhere else. Sorry to burst your bubble. And he is soft.

Going back to have actually conversations now, this part of the board usually has no hits till August. I get the feeling sitting alone waiting is not new to you though.

[BostonBlackie]

(03-10-2017, 07:52 PM)Jpoore Wrote: But you cant give him credit for those superbowls. His last legit superbowl win is 2004.

Please. He was down twice by ten points to Seattle. He was down 28 to 3 against Atlanta. 

Further, by your logic, he really should have 2 more except for two freak catches by the Giants. 

[BostonBlackie]

I've seen a lot of posts about Brady in forums from all around the league. These are the worst, most illogical, and biased.