Rob's House Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 I guess that depends on how much value you believe the whole spygate affair had on the outcome of games. For most, outside of this place, it's rarely a concern. Kinda like the blip on Elways career for being part of a team that cheated the salary cap enroute to winning their super bowls. I only mention it because the SBs are what everyone rests the Brady's the Greatest argument on. 3 SBs by a FG each, I think it's a valid question. I think Brady's one of the greatest either way. I thought he was very underrated back then. The line on that team was that there was no star on the team. Now we know there were stars and Brady was the biggest star. All the same, it's a tale of 2 careers. Early Brady didn't put up monster numbers, but he won SBs - all under a cloud of controversy. Over the last 8 or 9 years Brady has put up monster numbers, but has been mediocre in the playoffs. During that same time Manning, with less of a supporting cast (I really don't think this is even debatable) has put up equally impressive numbers, has been to as many SBs, and unlike Brady actually won one. It's a testament to the guy that even his detractors concede he's one of the best who ever did it. And when evaluating him overall I don't think Spygate takes much away from him overall. But when you're comparing against the other greats of the game, those subtle distinctions take on a lot more meaning.
Pneumonic Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 (edited) I only mention it because the SBs are what everyone rests the Brady's the Greatest argument on. 3 SBs by a FG each, I think it's a valid question. I think Brady's one of the greatest either way. I thought he was very underrated back then. The line on that team was that there was no star on the team. Now we know there were stars and Brady was the biggest star. All the same, it's a tale of 2 careers. Early Brady didn't put up monster numbers, but he won SBs - all under a cloud of controversy. Over the last 8 or 9 years Brady has put up monster numbers, but has been mediocre in the playoffs. During that same time Manning, with less of a supporting cast (I really don't think this is even debatable) has put up equally impressive numbers, has been to as many SBs, and unlike Brady actually won one. It's a testament to the guy that even his detractors concede he's one of the best who ever did it. And when evaluating him overall I don't think Spygate takes much away from him overall. But when you're comparing against the other greats of the game, those subtle distinctions take on a lot more meaning. I agree that bestowing Brady the honour of GOAT at this stage of the game is premature. With or without the SB wins, tainted or not as they may be due to spygate. However, by the time Brady hangs em up, he'll very likely end up posting #'s, all the way around, which are going to make it pretty much a no brainer, for anyone objective, to crown him as champ. Edited September 2, 2012 by Pneumonic
FreakPop Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 I only mention it because the SBs are what everyone rests the Brady's the Greatest argument on. 3 SBs by a FG each, I think it's a valid question. I think Brady's one of the greatest either way. I thought he was very underrated back then. The line on that team was that there was no star on the team. Now we know there were stars and Brady was the biggest star. All the same, it's a tale of 2 careers. Early Brady didn't put up monster numbers, but he won SBs - all under a cloud of controversy. Over the last 8 or 9 years Brady has put up monster numbers, but has been mediocre in the playoffs. During that same time Manning, with less of a supporting cast (I really don't think this is even debatable) has put up equally impressive numbers, has been to as many SBs, and unlike Brady actually won one. It's a testament to the guy that even his detractors concede he's one of the best who ever did it. And when evaluating him overall I don't think Spygate takes much away from him overall. But when you're comparing against the other greats of the game, those subtle distinctions take on a lot more meaning. Don't know where you are getting your info from, but Brady and Manning have had very similar numbers throughout their careers, and going back 9 years Brady is 2-2 in super bowls where Manning is 1-1. In no way shape or form has Manning had lesser talent at his disposal than Brady. The lone exception for Brady was a couple of years of R Moss to throw to.
miserable_fan Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 Don't know where you are getting your info from, but Brady and Manning have had very similar numbers throughout their careers, and going back 9 years Brady is 2-2 in super bowls where Manning is 1-1. In no way shape or form has Manning had lesser talent at his disposal than Brady. The lone exception for Brady was a couple of years of R Moss to throw to. Have you never watched either of them play? Manning is clearly the superior quarterback. The Colts could barely win a game without him -- The Patriots won 11 without Brady. Does that not give you an indication of who has the better talent on their team? And you've neglected to include BB in Brady's success.
FreakPop Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 (edited) Have you never watched either of them play? Manning is clearly the superior quarterback. The Colts could barely win a game without him -- The Patriots won 11 without Brady. Does that not give you an indication of who has the better talent on their team? And you've neglected to include BB in Brady's success. Maybe the backup QB had a little to do with that. C Painter just got cut because he sucks where M Cassel is and has been the starter in KC for a few years now. Hmmm did'nt think about that did ya! Edited September 2, 2012 by FreakPop
Pneumonic Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 Have you never watched either of them play? Manning is clearly the superior quarterback. The Colts could barely win a game without him -- The Patriots won 11 without Brady. Does that not give you an indication of who has the better talent on their team? And you've neglected to include BB in Brady's success. The argument that tosses your point out is simple ...... the QB that replaced Brady (Cassell) was much better than the dud QB's (Painter/Orlovski) who replaced Manning. No doubt that BB has been instrumental in Brady's success. But, in the case of Brady versus Manning. Let's not forget that the major advantage that Manning has had over Brady for much of his career, is consistency at two very key components; namely wideout and TE as well as having the same OC (Moore). Brady has had little to no consistency in these key areas. A strong argument could be made that if Brady had the consistency at these spots that Manning had then Brady would have posted even better passing totals.
Rob's House Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 (edited) Don't know where you are getting your info from, but Brady and Manning have had very similar numbers throughout their careers, and going back 9 years Brady is 2-2 in super bowls where Manning is 1-1. In no way shape or form has Manning had lesser talent at his disposal than Brady. The lone exception for Brady was a couple of years of R Moss to throw to. You're right about the 9 years; my memory got fuzzy on that one. I should have gone with 7 - It makes my argument work better . As far as the bold part, unless you're looking exclusively at receivers I don't know how you get there. NE's O-line has been one of, if not the single best units in the league year in year out. And since 07 NE's had arguably (almost certainly) better receivers, and with the exception of a year or two under Dungy, Indys D has been mediocre at best. I know it gets repeated ad nauseum, but it's hard to argue that a team that went 11-5 under a guy who hadn't started a game since HS has a solid supporting cast. Edited September 2, 2012 by Rob's House
FreakPop Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 You're right about the 9 years; my memory got fuzzy on that one. I should have gone with 7 - It makes my argument work better . As far as the bold part, unless you're looking exclusively at receivers I don't know how you get there. NE's O-line has been one of, if not the single best units in the league year in year out. And since 07 NE's had arguably (almost certainly) better receivers, and with the exception of a year or two under Dungy, Indys D has been mediocre at best. I know it gets repeated ad nauseum, but it's hard to argue that a team that went 11-5 under a guy who hadn't started a game since HS has a solid supporting cast. So you are trying to say New England has had 2 receivers better than, IMO HOFers Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, throw is Dallas Clark for good measure, and oh how about Edgerrin James catching balls out of the backfield also! No way no how has NE had better skill players than the Colts. I don't know how you can even justify what you are saying, it's not even arguable that Manning has better supporting cast. The oline is debatable and that is about it as both of those units were good.
LiterateStylish Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 Super bowl on the line, chance for career defining drive aka montana, watch this ..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBlvjtfpPAg&feature=youtube_gdata_player Two things. 1) That was a timing issue, and many coaches have said it was the receivers fault - not Manning's. 2) Brady has NEVER been in that situation. His defense always allowed him to only need a FIELD GOAL to win the game. So all Brady has ever had to do was get his offense within 30 yards of the endzone and let Vinatieri do the rest. Is it any surprise that Brady hasn't had a Super Bowl ring since Vinatieri left?
Pneumonic Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 Not sure how anyone could objectively argue that Brady has had better supporting staff of players than has Manning. Check out Brady's receivers over the years. And TE's. Even his OL has been in flux for much of his career. Not only that but Manning has had the same co-ordinator for almost all of his tenure while Brady's OC's change like underwear.
The Senator Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 If one were compiling a list of GOAT QBs, Brady would have to be WAY down the list - probably somewhere between 30 and 50, depending on just how much you're in love with him.
Rob's House Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 So you are trying to say New England has had 2 receivers better than, IMO HOFers Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, throw is Dallas Clark for good measure, and oh how about Edgerrin James catching balls out of the backfield also! No way no how has NE had better skill players than the Colts. I don't know how you can even justify what you are saying, it's not even arguable that Manning has better supporting cast. The oline is debatable and that is about it as both of those units were good. Harrison hasn't been a factor since 06, Wayne's good but nowhere near what Moss was, and Gronk & Gonzo more than make up for the disappearance of Moss. And it's been a long time since Edge was relevant. If one were compiling a list of GOAT QBs, Brady would have to be WAY down the list - probably somewhere between 30 and 50, depending on just how much you're in love with him. I'd probably rank him higher than that, but I do think the Brady crowd chooses to ignore the fact that he's been in the ideal situation ever since taking the reigns in NE.
Pneumonic Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 Harrison hasn't been a factor since 06, Wayne's good but nowhere near what Moss was, and Gronk & Gonzo more than make up for the disappearance of Moss. And it's been a long time since Edge was relevant. None of Moss, Welker, Gronk or Hernandez were around to help Brady win his 3 SB titles. Check the list of players Brady had at his disposal back then. I'd probably rank him higher than that, but I do think the Brady crowd chooses to ignore the fact that he's been in the ideal situation ever since taking the reigns in NE. And Montana was in the ideal situation too, right
BiggieScooby Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 John Elway is the greatest QB I have ever watched in a live game. Brady might play the most consistent, but Elway had all the tools. After Elway I'd have to give props to Peyton Manning.
Tcali Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 I think if you are under 35 its very difficult to judge all time great QBs. You just havent seen enough football. Even at 54 I have to admit that i didnt see Johnny U in his prime...or Baugh , or Otto Graham. Brady is certainly an excellent QB due to incredible cool, the ability to slow the game down, a good not great--but accurate arm. He is certainly top 10 from the last 40 years.---I do not,however,see him as the type of QB with the skill to carry mediocre teams on his shoulders like Marino and Elway did. I will give Brady credit as being the closest thing to Joe Montana in the 'keeping your cool' dept on the field.
stinky finger Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 (edited) Not sure how anyone could objectively argue that Brady has had better supporting staff of players than has Manning. Check out Brady's receivers over the years. And TE's. Even his OL has been in flux for much of his career. Not only that but Manning has had the same co-ordinator for almost all of his tenure while Brady's OC's change like underwear. Harrison and Wayne were special because of Manning. Elsewhere, they are ordinary to good. As already mentioned, Casell went 11-5 in Brady's absence. That's VERY telling. We all know how the Colts did without Manning. Brady is undoubtedly an all-time geat QB. The question was asked, is he the greaest? The answer is.....NO. Period. Edited September 2, 2012 by billsoverdue
Rob's House Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 (edited) None of Moss, Welker, Gronk or Hernandez were around to help Brady win his 3 SB titles. Check the list of players Brady had at his disposal back then. They had one of the best defenses in the league back then and still had an elite O-line. Edit: And Brady wasn't putting up gaudy numbers back then, either. And Montana was in the ideal situation too, right Is there any other argument for keeping Montana out of the top spot? Edited September 2, 2012 by Rob's House
Tcali Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 Yeah, but that's like saying Emmit Smith is the greatest RB of all time. He's the NFL's all-time rushing leader, but I don't know a lot of people who will say he's the greatest. True--Emmit is not even in the discussion for the greatest of all -time.shouldnt even be mentioned.
K-9 Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 (edited) Super bowl on the line, chance for career defining drive aka montana, watch this ..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBlvjtfpPAg&feature=youtube_gdata_player So you don't watch the games I guess. Moot point though. Manning's a first ballot HOFer. Voted in by people who... ...watch the games. GO BILLS!!! Edited September 2, 2012 by K-9
stinky finger Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 Yep...can you imagine John Elway getting rattled? All you have to do is re-watch the Green Bay super bowl and you'll see what it looks like to "not get rattled". No doubt a good example. I think a more recent example was the sheer beating Eli took last year vs the 49ers. He was pummeled and made the plays needed to win what was arguably the best game played in quite some time. Eli is elite.
Recommended Posts