Rings & GOAT's: should the # of them really be the argument for Brady?

[Success]

As we approach another Brady invitational, I see it more & more on twitter & the boards:  If Brady gets #7, no one will ever touch him, and he will always be the undisputed GOAT.

 

Really?  Football is clearly one of the ultimate team games.  You need 3 phases to win the big one - not to mention some luck along the way, and generally great coaching.  Looking at Brady's rings:  the D really won both Rams games.  And Brady sure didn't get that interception of Wilson at the goal line, or make all of the stops against the Falcons that allowed for a comeback.

 

Brady might get #7, but he also threw 3 picks last week that most QB's wouldn't have gotten away with.  The other team just didn't take advantage.

 

Peyton Manning went through 5 coaches, and played with organizations that generally did not know how to build a balanced team.  Brady had one coach - the GOAT - and they knew how to build the lines and create genuine championship teams.

 

Would Brady have 6 rings if his coach was Caldwell, or McCarthy?  Would Manning have only 2 or Rodgers only 1 if either had BB the whole time?

 

And of course, there is the other argument on rings:  is Dilfer better than Marino?  Is Bradshaw just as good as Montana?

 

And as a Bills fan, it nags me that Kelly would be considered historically higher in the rankings with just 1 ring.  It wasn't Kelly that allowed a 10 minute drive to start the 3rd quarter against the Giants, and he did everything he could to put us in a position to win.

 

I think Brady is the GOAT, but not because of rings.  It's a poor argument.  Not that it should be A factor, but most fans make it THE factor.  This isn't tennis or golf.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Success

[Don Otreply]

Fuh K Brady 

 

He has been caught cheating every four ish years on average  for two decades straight, he lacks the very sportsmanship qualities that are a requirement for such an accolade. He is a walking character flaw. 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Don Otreply

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

HC’s don’t matter for Brady, he just takes them along for the ride. Their are a lot of good HC in the NFL and that is all Brady really needs as far as coaching is concerned. You give Brady a offense with weapons and you can see what he can do with it. Belicheat sucks.

[The Frankish Reich]

Look, i'm as much of a Brady hater as anyone.

But ... 

This is a little like "Clyde Drexler was a better player than Michael Jordan; if you'd put him on the Bulls and Jordan on the Trailblazers, we'd be calling Clyde the GOAT."

[TheFunPolice]

It's crazy, but it just goes to show that rings are what matter in terms of legacy. 

 

Bradshaw has 4 times as many rings as Rogers. Is he 4X better? 

 

Stats are cute, but rings can never be taken away. 

[gjv001]

If the Buc's win, perhaps they should rename the Super Bowl trophy, "The Brady Trophy".

[US Egg]

There is no argument or debate about Brady.

 

Best ever....so far.

[KOKBILLS]

I'm no Tom Brady fan and I hope TB gets pounded tonight by 50.

 

That being said Brady is the GOAT and I really don't think there is any doubt about it whatsoever. 

[NewEra]

Brady is the GOAT in football.  There is no doubt.  
 

Mahomes is coming for him

[TBBills]

Brady is the *Goat

[BfloBillsFan]

If you use winning as your metric, then yes Tom Brady is the GOAT. I don't see that being the best way to evaluate a QB. If you combine in stats  and ability (extending plays, making throws, not being 1 dimensional, having some "wow" factor) then I don't think not Tom.  While I acknowledge Tom also has good stats, I see Rogers or Marino (and can see Mahommes being in the discussion in about 5 years) as the GOATs. Brady has always been in a position to succeed, and has taken advantage of it

Edited February 7, 2021 by BfloBillsFan

[Logic]

I will say that JUST looking at the number of rings alone should not dictate "greatest of all time". As Bruce Exclusive would say, "QB wins are not a stat".

If we're looking at number of rings to decide GOATs, then Charles Haley is the greatest defensive end of all time, since he won five rings. And again, if championship wins are all that matters, Otto Graham won seven championships as QB of the Browns, so he must be the best QB.

That being said...when you combine Brady's Super Bowl trips, rings, AND career statistics, it's hard to argue against him being the best. It greatly pains me to say that, but it's true.

The only way you can reasonably argue for anyone other than Brady is by pointing out the difference in rules across successive eras. If Joe Montana or Dan Marino played in the 2000's NFL, with the way receivers and QBs are protected, what would their numbers and careers look like? 

I, for one, have always held onto Joe Montana as the GOAT, but with each passing year of greatness from Brady -- not to mention seeing him still doing well now that he's separated from Belichick -- it gets harder and harder to deny Tom as the best. 

Now excuse me while I go vomit.

[Billl]

Rings aren’t the end all be all, but they certainly matter.  If Rodgers had 3 and Brady had 5, you could have the discussion.  If Rodgers retires with 1 and Brady retires with 7, you can’t.  If Mahomes wins today, the discussion will start warming up.  If Brady wins, I don’t think Patrick will ever be able to close that gap.

[MJS]

He is clearly, far and away, the GOAT. Nobody is seriously trying to dispute this anymore, are they?

 

You don't have to like him. You don't even have to respect him. But he is the GOAT. It's just a fact.

 

Pointing to poor play when he is in his mid 40's is silly. Of course he isn't as good as he used to be.

[Success]

20 minutes ago, Logic said:

I will say that JUST looking at the number of rings alone should not dictate "greatest of all time". As Bruce Exclusive would say, "QB wins are not a stat".

If we're looking at number of rings to decide GOATs, then Charles Haley is the greatest defensive end of all time, since he won five rings. And again, if championship wins are all that matters, Otto Graham won seven championships as QB of the Browns, so he must be the best QB.

That being said...when you combine Brady's Super Bowl trips, rings, AND career statistics, it's hard to argue against him being the best. It greatly pains me to say that, but it's true.

The only way you can reasonably argue for anyone other than Brady is by pointing out the difference in rules across successive eras. If Joe Montana or Dan Marino played in the 2000's NFL, with the way receivers and QBs are protected, what would their numbers and careers look like? 

I, for one, have always held onto Joe Montana as the GOAT, but with each passing year of greatness from Brady -- not to mention seeing him still doing well now that he's separated from Belichick -- it gets harder and harder to deny Tom as the best. 

Now excuse me while I go vomit.

 

This is very well stated, and I agree w/ all of it.

 

The OP was more a reaction to a clear sentiment on the internet among many that it's all rings, rings, rings, and 7 for Brady would put him out of reach. People were even saying things like "the most Mahomes could get is 5-6, so there is no way he could ever be the GOAT" (paraphrasing some comments I saw).

 

Too narrow a focus. But of course it's part of the evaluation, as is the fact that he took a 2nd team there, in his 40's.  

 

It's hard to dispute he's the GOAT, and I don't.  

 

[Dukestreetking]

2 minutes ago, Success said:

Too narrow a focus. But of course it's part of the evaluation, as is the fact that he took a 2nd team there, in his 40's.  

This.

 

In a frighteningly kinetic sport, he is playing highest level football (the game itself), at the most important position, with a very good (not excellent) season

...at his freaking age.

 

Continual, consistent championship-level/winning play. What else defines hyper-excellence?

 

(And I hate this m'fer)

[Logic]

11 minutes ago, Success said:

 

This is very well stated, and I agree w/ all of it.

 

The OP was more a reaction to a clear sentiment on the internet among many that it's all rings, rings, rings, and 7 for Brady would put him out of reach. People were even saying things like "the most Mahomes could get is 5-6, so there is no way he could ever be the GOAT" (paraphrasing some comments I saw).

 

Too narrow a focus. But of course it's part of the evaluation, as is the fact that he took a 2nd team there, in his 40's.  

 

It's hard to dispute he's the GOAT, and I don't.  

 

As football continues to change, it’s going to be harder and harder to compare players from different eras.

 

The NFL is now an INCREDIBLY pass-happy league, so Mahomes’ stats will likely blow Brady’s out of the water. There’s about to be one additional game per year, as well, and that will skew numbers. 
 

This brings us back to rings as the markers of GOAT status. It’s a fair debate with no clear answer. Jordan vs Lebron is another fine example of the “how much do rings matter?” Conundrum.

[Rico]

Rings are a very important part of being the GOAT. I do tend to compare overall playoff performance to regular season performance, and if there is a drastic difference in big games, that person is not in the conversation of being the very best ever. Sorry Dan Marino, sorry Steve Young, sorry but also congrats to Peyton Gump (Big Game Chump) for making the HOF.

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Rico

[The Frankish Reich]

3 minutes ago, Dukestreetking said:

This.

 

In a frighteningly kinetic sport, he is playing highest level football (the game itself), at the most important position, with a very good (not excellent) season

...at his freaking age.

 

Continual, consistent championship-level/winning play. What else defines hyper-excellence?

 

(And I hate this m'fer)

Just on the objective stats at age 43:

 

- QB Rating: 9th in the NFL

- ANY/A (adjusted net yards per attempt): 8th

- Total passing yards: 3rd

- Sack rate: 3rd

 

I hate that this is happening (Brady on the cusp of winning another SB ring) ... but it is.

We may be entering a new age of increased longevity for QBs with Brady/Rodgers/Rivers all having excellent seasons in their late 30s/early 40s (Brees/Ben on the other hand showing steep declines), so maybe someone catches him some day. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

 

[RobbRiddick]

I still believe you have to separate guys by era. But that's just me. There's no question Brady is the greatest in the salary cap era, as much as I dislike him. Maybe it'll come out one day that he's been using performance enhancing drugs for years or something.

 

For me, the era before this, Montana was the greatest. He won Super Bowls in every way it's possible - blowouts and close games won at the end. He was perfect and never threw a pick (Lewis Billups must have kicked himself until the day he died about that). 

 

Some people say look at the teams Montana had and how easy it was to maintain them. That's true, but I also think the level of competition isn't the same these days, and QBs have it so easy. I mean Brady cries to the ref whenever a defensive player looks at him the wrong way, and usually gets a flag. So I think these things offset.

 

Maybe you tend to go with the guy you grew up watching. People from the generation before mine will often say Jonny U is the greatest.

 

Ask yourself this. Your life is on the line in the biggest game, your team has the ball with 2 minutes left, which QB do you choose? I'd choose Joe Cool. He was perfect in the big games and that can never be changed.