Results 21 to 30 of 160
-
12-18-2016, 11:12 PM #21
with all do respect CFL is like pee wee football compared to NFL.
-
-
01-03-2017, 07:09 PM #22
Sorry but Brady is best in my opinion. I can't stand how people say this guy beat that guy. This isn't tennis. They don't play each other. One minute your saying Manning has all these individual awards so he is so great but Brady won more but oh ya that is a team win. Haha. Seriously. The team doesn't win all those games without Brady. So QB's don't win championships only teams do? Makes no sense. QB is the most important position obviously. Brady has done more with less in his career than Manning. Manning played half his games in a dome with Reggie Wayne and Marvin Harrison probably two HOF WR for almost his entire career. Manning then goes to Denver which has a Number one defense and great wide receivers there. Sometimes great players sacrifice individual awards for the team greatness. If your great you make the team better. You make the players better. So all those manning first round exits for his teams had nothing to do with him. It was all bad play of the team. Ok sure. And I don't even want to get started on Montana. He had so many great players on his team and how many times did he play all 16 games in his 15 yr career? Twice! Brady is a rock.
-
01-04-2017, 01:20 AM #23
I agree with everything after your first sentence 100%. It irks me as well that people speak of QB's as if they were tennis players or boxers, when football is the ultimate team game. The fact that Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have SB rings while Dan Marino does not is all the proof anyone should need to realize that "team success" is not an indicator of "individual greatness".
One minute your saying Manning has all these individual awards so he is so great but Brady won more but oh ya that is a team win. Haha. Seriously. The team doesn't win all those games without Brady. So QB's don't win championships only teams do? Makes no sense.
Um, what? The above statement is the polar opposite of your first paragraph. You just got done saying that football isn't tennis and that teams win and now you're saying you don't like it that people claim teams win ... what?
As for the Patriots not winning their rings without Brady ... consider the fact that Brady was 3-0 in Super Bowls when he was basically a game manager, but that once he became the "great" Tom Brady and the guy that carried the Patriots, he won just one ... and lost two to Eli Manning. If Brady's individual greatness was the deciding factor in whether or not the Patriots win SB's, he would have 3+ rings AFTER he became the player he is now, and none in those early years when he was a game manager, but that's not what happened.
Would the Patriots have won 4 SB's without Tom Brady and with one of their backup QB's? I doubt it. However could they have won 5 or more with a guy like Manning instead of Brady? Possibly.
QB is the most important position obviously. Brady has done more with less in his career than Manning. Manning played half his games in a dome with Reggie Wayne and Marvin Harrison probably two HOF WR for almost his entire career. Manning then goes to Denver which has a Number one defense and great wide receivers there.
I would agree that Manning had more "offensive big-name players" than Brady throughout their respective careers, but I would disagree entirely that Brady did more with less and I believe those Patriots "teams" were far, far better and more complete teams than what Manning had for the most part, and it is teams, and not "offenses" that win rings.
If it was merely offenses that win rings, one could say that Trent Dilfer did "more with less" in winning his ring with the Ravens than Brady has ever done in winning any of his rings with the Patriots ... but everyone knows that Ravens teams had one of the best defenses of all-time and that counts for a ton.
Sometimes great players sacrifice individual awards for the team greatness. If your great you make the team better. You make the players better.
I'm sorry but that's nonsense in regards to Brady. You could say that about a QB like Troy Aikman who obviously sacrificed "stats" for the good of the team, but not Brady. Brady simply was not the Brady we see now for the earlier part of his career and won some early rings as a game manager.
So all those manning first round exits for his teams had nothing to do with him. It was all bad play of the team. Ok sure.
Players do not win or lose games, teams win or lose games. Did Brady lose the SB's to Eli Manning? Do those two games prove Eli Manning is a better QB than Tom Brady? Of course not. The Patriots "team" lost those games to the Giants "team".
And I don't even want to get started on Montana. He had so many great players on his team and how many times did he play all 16 games in his 15 yr career? Twice! Brady is a rock.
Joe also played in a far more physical and dangerous era under different rules as well ... there are some who don't think Brady would have survived in Montana's era ... I think those folks are crazy as Brady is an all-time great and could have thrived in any era, but, I don't think Brady's availability should really be lauded over Montana's ... now Brett Favre is a different story ... that guy was a rock!
-
-
01-04-2017, 12:33 PM #24
Obviously there is confusion in what I wrote so I will hopefully make it clearer.
[QUOTE=Jameis1of1;14335488]I agree with everything after your first sentence 100%. It irks me as well that people speak of QB's as if they were tennis players or boxers, when football is the ultimate team game. The fact that Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have SB rings while Dan Marino does not is all the proof anyone should need to realize that "team success" is not an indicator of "individual greatness".
Um, what? The above statement is the polar opposite of your first paragraph. You just got done saying that football isn't tennis and that teams win and now you're saying you don't like it that people claim teams win ... what?
I was NOT comparing football to tennis. What I said was the comparison of one QB to another QB THEY don't play each other like in tennis. And your comment about Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have SB rings and Marino does not. Your twisting this argument here. Robert Horry has 7 rings but is he a better player than Charles Barkley? Of course not. Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson were the true game managers. They didn't have to do much because their team was so great. This is why neither was named superbowl MVP. Everyone knows they did nothing. Brady was named MVP for his first two because he did the most for his team. Not just a game manager as you suggest. The 2nd superbowl he won the Pats scored 32 points. Great game managing I guess or was it the great defense. Haha.
As for the Patriots not winning their rings without Brady ... consider the fact that Brady was 3-0 in Super Bowls when he was basically a game manager, but that once he became the "great" Tom Brady and the guy that carried the Patriots, he won just one ... and lost two to Eli Manning. If Brady's individual greatness was the deciding factor in whether or not the Patriots win SB's, he would have 3+ rings AFTER he became the player he is now, and none in those early years when he was a game manager, but that's not what happened.
Would the Patriots have won 4 SB's without Tom Brady and with one of their backup QB's? I doubt it. However could they have won 5 or more with a guy like Manning instead of Brady? Possibly.
Ok. Don't do this. Don't put one player on another team and suggest something. I can do the same thing but it is idiotic. Brady in a dome with Harrison and wayne. Maybe he wins even more and Manning on the patriots wins nothing. You can't just assume the positive so don't do this. Your argument about Brady greatness winning 3+ rings after he became the player he is now is confusing. Did he get better as time got on? Yes. But I never said he was the ONLY factor to winning a superbowl. He is just the MOST IMPORTANT one. Those teams were not good enough and the talent were not good enough to win when it counted. The 2007 lose was bad. I mean come on. 18-0 and lose. They ran into the better team. I accept that. The 2nd lost to the giants was bad too but even I was surprised they were there. The team around Brady was poor but he still managed to get them there.
I would agree that Manning had more "offensive big-name players" than Brady throughout their respective careers, but I would disagree entirely that Brady did more with less and I believe those Patriots "teams" were far, far better and more complete teams than what Manning had for the most part, and it is teams, and not "offenses" that win rings.
Ok again please read what I wrote. I was comparing the individual achievements here. Not Rings. I said Manning had better weapons and you agreed. You go on to say that Brady had better "teams". I was trying to explain how there is a difference in their individual stats like passing touchdowns, yards etc. Manning had better offensive weapons and played games in a dome. Brady had less offensive weapons and played outdoors for his home games which included rain and snow. It is not hard to see how one person has an offensive advantage over the other one. [/QUOTE]
If it was merely offenses that win rings, one could say that Trent Dilfer did "more with less" in winning his ring with the Ravens than Brady has ever done in winning any of his rings with the Patriots ... but everyone knows that Ravens teams had one of the best defenses of all-time and that counts for a ton.
Again this was answered above. Never said just offenses win. And everyone knows the Ravens had a better team. How could Trent Dilfer do more with less? This makes absolutely no sense!!!! The ravens were FAVORITES to win the superbowl over the Giants. The patriots in their first superbowl were 14 point underdogs.
I'm sorry but that's nonsense in regards to Brady. You could say that about a QB like Troy Aikman who obviously sacrificed "stats" for the good of the team, but not Brady. Brady simply was not the Brady we see now for the earlier part of his career and won some early rings as a game manager.
Haha. Okay. Aikman sacrified stats for the good of the team. Let me know when one of Tom Brady's running back or WR make it into the HOF like smith and Irvin. Bad Bad comparison of sacrificed stats. I guess Michael Irvin just threw the ball to himself.
Players do not win or lose games, teams win or lose games. Did Brady lose the SB's to Eli Manning? Do those two games prove Eli Manning is a better QB than Tom Brady? Of course not. The Patriots "team" lost those games to the Giants "team".
I was talking about the amount of first round exits by Peyton manning. I won't even talk about how many years Eli couldn't get the team into the playoffs. Your going to compare two SUPERBOWL loses to first round playoff exits? At least Brady helped get them to the Superbowl. A first round exit is worse in my opinion. Especially when Peyton's teams were the favorite as well. So let me make sure I understand this. Peyton has all these awards for all these regular season acheivements. His teams have great win-loss records and he craps out in the first round many times but it is not his fault but the teams. Brady has inferior stats to peyton but but his wins are the teams and he is just a game manager. Haha. Maybe peyton should have game managed more and not been so selfish. Yes teams win and lose not one person. My point is from a team standpoint Brady has done more for his team than peyton has done for his.
Joe also played in a far more physical and dangerous era under different rules as well ... there are some who don't think Brady would have survived in Montana's era ... I think those folks are crazy as Brady is an all-time great and could have thrived in any era, but, I don't think Brady's availability should really be lauded over Montana's ... now Brett Favre is a different story ... that guy was a rock!
You just answered your own question. So Montana cannot survive like Favre can in the same era. Since brady became a starter in 2001 he has played in all 16 games in 13 out of 16 years. I included this year of missing the 4 games as a year he didn't play all 16. I think the amount of games played in his own era suggest a level of toughness compared to others of his same era.
I will say this to end it. If Brady gets the Pats to the Superbowl for a 7th time nevermind if he wins but just getting their is an accomplishment. I know the whole team argument about winning and losing. Teams are like a bus. You have a lot of parts that go into making it but you only have one driver. Brady is the best driver imho. Those that cry cheating are haters.
-
01-04-2017, 06:53 PM #25
Okay ... I'm enjoying our little debate so I'll take the time t reply to all your points ... but ... please do try and do the quote thing the right way from now on as it's a hassle to copy and paste all your statements and everything as-is :-)
I was NOT comparing football to tennis. What I said was the comparison of one QB to another QB THEY don't play each other like in tennis. And your comment about Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have SB rings and Marino does not. Your twisting this argument here. Robert Horry has 7 rings but is he a better player than Charles Barkley? Of course not. Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson were the true game managers. They didn't have to do much because their team was so great. This is why neither was named superbowl MVP. Everyone knows they did nothing. Brady was named MVP for his first two because he did the most for his team. Not just a game manager as you suggest. The 2nd superbowl he won the Pats scored 32 points. Great game managing I guess or was it the great defense. Haha.
Your train of thought is a bit hard to follow. I am unequivocally saying that football players and NOT like boxers or tennis players as football is the consumate TEAM game, period. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning have never won a ring ... the Patriots and Colts/Broncos have.
Tom Brady averaged around 3,385 yards, 23 TD's and 13 INT's in those three SB seasons ... those are indeed "game manager" numbers, yet his TEAM won three rings.
In the TEN full seasons since, Brady has averaged 4,403 yards, 33 TD's and 10 INT's ... true suprstar QB numbers ... and yet he has only won ONE ring.
The above proves that football is the consummate TEAM game and that individual greatness, such as in comparing Brady and Manning or Montana or whoever, should never be based on TEAM success.
Ok. Don't do this. Don't put one player on another team and suggest something. I can do the same thing but it is idiotic. Brady in a dome with Harrison and wayne. Maybe he wins even more and Manning on the patriots wins nothing. You can't just assume the positive so don't do this. Your argument about Brady greatness winning 3+ rings after he became the player he is now is confusing. Did he get better as time got on? Yes. But I never said he was the ONLY factor to winning a superbowl. He is just the MOST IMPORTANT one. Those teams were not good enough and the talent were not good enough to win when it counted. The 2007 lose was bad. I mean come on. 18-0 and lose. They ran into the better team. I accept that. The 2nd lost to the giants was bad too but even I was surprised they were there. The team around Brady was poor but he still managed to get them there.
Again, teams win games, not individual players. Also, the Giants were NOT a better team than the 18-0 Patriots ... not even close. The Patriots just got beat that day plain and simple and that happens from time to time when one team is a "bad matchup" for another team.
Ok again please read what I wrote. I was comparing the individual achievements here. Not Rings. I said Manning had better weapons and you agreed. You go on to say that Brady had better "teams". I was trying to explain how there is a difference in their individual stats like passing touchdowns, yards etc. Manning had better offensive weapons and played games in a dome. Brady had less offensive weapons and played outdoors for his home games which included rain and snow. It is not hard to see how one person has an offensive advantage over the other one.
I can agree with the above 100%
Again this was answered above. Never said just offenses win. And everyone knows the Ravens had a better team. How could Trent Dilfer do more with less? This makes absolutely no sense!!!! The ravens were FAVORITES to win the superbowl over the Giants. The patriots in their first superbowl were 14 point underdogs.
You said Brady winning rings with less offensive weapns than Manning was proof he "did more with less" and I simply replied that Dilfer winning a ring would therefore prove he "did more with less" than Brady as Brady had better weapons than Dilfer had. The whole thing is silly as TEAM success is a product of TEAM greatness rather than individual greatness, so the whole "more with less" thing should only ever be discussed in relation to "stats" rather than "wins".
By the way ... the Patriots were indeed big underdogs in that first SB win ... and if you remember that was "Spygate" and there are many who feel the Patriots would not have won if they didn't steal signals and cheat to do so ... I don't know if they would or would not have but I do believe the Rams were the better "team" that year.
Haha. Okay. Aikman sacrified stats for the good of the team. Let me know when one of Tom Brady's running back or WR make it into the HOF like smith and Irvin. Bad Bad comparison of sacrificed stats. I guess Michael Irvin just threw the ball to himself.
Yes, Aikman sacrificed stats ... every single year! That guy could really sling the ole pigskin and could have been a diva and demanded to throw the ball 35+ times and game and racked up 4k and 30+ TD seasons ... but the team would have suffered as they were built to dominate the line of scrimmage, run the ball down the defenses throat and just demoralize teams with their dominant rushing attack ... and so Aikman sacrificed his stats for the good of the team. Brady did NOT do that ... Brady simply was a game manager in his younger years and took quite a while to develop into the elite QB he is now.
I was talking about the amount of first round exits by Peyton manning. I won't even talk about how many years Eli couldn't get the team into the playoffs. Your going to compare two SUPERBOWL loses to first round playoff exits? At least Brady helped get them to the Superbowl. A first round exit is worse in my opinion. Especially when Peyton's teams were the favorite as well. So let me make sure I understand this. Peyton has all these awards for all these regular season acheivements. His teams have great win-loss records and he craps out in the first round many times but it is not his fault but the teams. Brady has inferior stats to peyton but but his wins are the teams and he is just a game manager. Haha. Maybe peyton should have game managed more and not been so selfish. Yes teams win and lose not one person. My point is from a team standpoint Brady has done more for his team than peyton has done for his.
I couldn't disagree with your last statement more. Brady has done more for his team than Peyton Manning? You have got to be joking. You can say Brady has experienced more team success, you could even say Brady has been "slightly" better in the postseason than Manning as he has a very, very small advantage in pstseasn QB rating when compared to Manning, but to say he did more for his team than Manning is just laughable and absurd.
Tom Brady has played for ONE head coach his entire career, sat on the bench and learned the game for a while, was able to win 3 rings as a "game manager" and has played for the best run organization in the NFL his entire career ... and he's had a great career. Manning was drafted by a joke franchise, asked to be the team savior from day 1, and was "the man" on his team his entire career until his very last season when he himself became a "game manager". During all those years Manning won 4 AFC titles with 4 different coaches and 2 SB rings with 2 different coaches ... and was basically the offensive coordinator for his team the entire time.
If Brady and Manning were NBA players ... Brady was Bill Russell, the consummate teammate and professional on the best run team in the league who experienced a ton of team success ... and Manning was LeBron James, the greatest individual talent and the one with the most responsibility heaped on top of his shoulders who experienced an amazing amount of individual success and a great deal of team success as well.
You just answered your own question. So Montana cannot survive like Favre can in the same era. Since brady became a starter in 2001 he has played in all 16 games in 13 out of 16 years. I included this year of missing the 4 games as a year he didn't play all 16. I think the amount of games played in his own era suggest a level of toughness compared to others of his same era.
Not really. I mean Peyton played every game for 13 straight years, then had multiple neck surgeries and came back to play every single game the next 3 years as well ...
I will say this to end it. If Brady gets the Pats to the Superbowl for a 7th time nevermind if he wins but just getting their is an accomplishment. I know the whole team argument about winning and losing. Teams are like a bus. You have a lot of parts that go into making it but you only have one driver. Brady is the best driver imho. Those that cry cheating are haters.
Brady is amazing and has every bit as much claim to GOAT status as Montana and maybe even Manning does, so I'm not taking anything away from him, nor am I a "hater". I've been rooting for Brady this year and wanted him to beat the NFL in the whole deflate-gate thing, but I think anyone who thinks Brady has a slam-dunk stronger case for GOAT when compared to Manning, let alone a guy like Otto Graham, is simply kidding him or her self. Brady should go down as maybe the greatest team leader ever and certainly as the greatest "winner" ever, but that's different than being the "best QB" ever. For example Bill Russell is remembered as the greatest winner in NBA history and a better leader and teammate than almost anyone ... yet most would agree that Wilt Chamberlain was the far superior individual talent and the more dominant center.
As for the "cheating" thing ... I don't personally view Brady as a cheater ... but many do and many will always assign an asterix to his first and 4th SB rings just as many assign an asterix to Barry Bonds MLB stats, yet just as with Bonds, Brady had a remarkable career that no one can deny.Last edited by Jameis1of1; 01-04-2017 at 06:57 PM.
-
-
01-05-2017, 01:48 AM #26
This cheating thing is funny and I know you said you don't personally view Brady as a cheater. All I want to finally say on this topic is this. Brady won his 4th superbowl AFTER the whole deflategate mess with balls I am sure where inflated perfectly in the Superbowl and took down a legendary defense in Seattle. The pressure on him had to be immense and he played maybe his greatest superbowl game. And all I see on the TV is Atlanta pumping in crowd noise and the Giants in trouble for the walkie talkie thing and the steelers supposedly deflating stuff or the Vikings warming balls under a heat lamp during cold weather. I am tired tired tired of everyone saying the Pats cheat but everyone else in the NFL is innocent. NO TEAM is innocent but haters hear and see what they want. Does Jerry Rice still have some stickem left? We could use it for the superbowl..Wait did that help you JOE. Nahh..They hate us cause they ain't us!!!!
-
01-05-2017, 05:03 AM #27
I am not the blog master that you are and never said I was so I will just bold my comments. Haha. Your statements about players vs team games. Team sports constitute that you play with others on a team. It doesn't mean that one player cannot have more of an impact on the outcome than others. The QB has the most effect since they touch the ball on almost every play other than kicking. It is also why teams do so poorly when they don't have a good QB. It can take years to find one. But in your theory it really shouldn't matter since it is such a consummate TEAM GAME. Why can't the other 50 players make it work? It can when you have exceptions like the 2000 ravens but in reality that is just that. The exception. Without a franchise QB you go nowhere.
I think you misunderstood me. I agree QB is "the most important position", however if a team is great, they don't need a "great" QB to win ... Dilfer, Johnson, McMahon, Flacco, Roethlisberger (first SB), Eli, etc., all prove that. What I'm saying is that Peyton Manning and a bunch of other QB's could have won those first 3 rings Brady won if they had the same team, that's all.
On to your brady stats theories. You pick one stat and say look at this. You cannot do that. One thing doesn't necessarily equate to the other. Has brady gotten to become a better producer numbers wise as he has gotten older. Yes. Your theory that because brady didn't light the world on fire mean he was a game manager. Absolutely not. Use the 2003 superbowl as an example. He threw for 354 yards in the superbowl in a game he was "managing". My point is I don't believe he was not capable of lighting it up but you do what you need to do to win the game. It is being smart. In the 2001 superbowl their job was to keep the high powered Rams on the sideline. How do you do that? You control the clock. But of course then you have people calling you a game manager because you don't light the world on fire. In tom brady's 6 six superbowls his 2 highest yardage came in two wins. His next 2 highest came in the 2 loses and finally the lowest 2 came in another 2 wins and the years were all mixed and not half and half like your regular season analogy suggest.
The stats I listed are facts and aren't debatable. You're referring "single game" stats which are relatively meaningless as anything can happen in one single game ... heck, Nick Foles threw SEVEN TD'S in one single game! Brady was indeed a "game manager" for many years.
Again I keep arguing the same thing here. You keep pointing at the exception and I am using more the rule. Team success is most affected by the QB position. And yes rings matter and anyone that says they don't are the ones that don't have any..Haha.
How many 1st team all-pro QB's won the "ring" in that year? Not many! More often than not the "best" QB in each season does NOT win the SB ... that is just a fact. As for rings mattering ... I really disagree. I think "team success" is insanely over-valued when comparing individual players. I mean everyone seems to agree with me on ALL OTHER POSITIONS ... except QB. No one is going to argue against Randy Moss as one of the best WR's ever or Barry Sanders as one of the best RB's ever though they know full well neither player ever won a ring. However when one starts comparing QB's many people want to point to rings and I think it's just silly. Again ... Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have a ring while Marino, Fouts, Moon, Kelly, Tarkenton and many other truly great QB's do not ... 1st team all-pro and season MVP mean far more than a ring ... FIFTY-THREE players earn a ring each year, just ONE earns the MVP and 1st team all-pro.
You contradict yourself. You say Manning had better weapons and played home games in a better environment. So he did more because he had more. Brady did not have the same weapons or environment so to be able to do what he has done over his career is pretty amazing. YES MORE DONE WITH LESS STUFF. And you want to bring in QB rating. Ok let's use your stuff since QB rating brings stats together. Mr Manning with his superior weapons and home dome advantage has a career QB rating of 96.5. Mr Brees who you mentioned in an earlier post and you seem to like as well and also plays in a dome. He has a career QB rating of 96.3. Mr. Brady who has less weapons and plays at times in wind, rain and snow. His career QB rating is 97.2. A small advantage but considering everything else it is even more impressive!!!
Brady's and Brees QB rating should continue to increase do to them playing in the new NFL ... I imagine when Aaron Rodgers retires, his fans will be pointing to his rating, which will likely be way, way higher than Brady's, as proof that he was better than Brady ... that's not sensible. I brought up QB rating in regards to each player's playoff appearances as Manning and Brady are almost identical, yet Brady fans want to pretend Brady is the playoff god and Manning is a choker, which is absurd when their rating is almost identical and therefore proves Brady simply had better "teams".
Wow talk about crap being slung. Manning was the number one pick for a reason. He was supposed to be good. Now we are crying Peyton didn't have coaching help either? Cry me a river seriously. Tony Dungy is in the HOF. Bill Polian who built the colts is in the HOF. Seriously dude. How much more help does Peyton need? Someone take Peyton off the cross. I didn't realize he sacrificed so much. Now THIS IS LAUGHABLE AND ABSOLUTELY ABSURD! IF ONLY HE COULD GET SOME GOOD PLAYERS TOO!! POOR PEYTON.
Um, what in the world are you talking about? I stated facts ... they can't be debated as they are facts ... if you don't like those facts and feel those facts somehow lessen Brady's resume, that isn't my problem ... the facts are still the facts.
I am not going to compare football players to basketball players. It is a bad comparison. Russell and Lebron and play offense and defense and affect the game both ways. Not like Brady can save his defense. If he was that great he could have saved the defense in the two superbowl losses. He did leave the field with the lead and the defense gave it up
Hmmm ... I suppose that is a good segway into me mentioning that my vote fr QB GOAT was not Brady or Manning or even Montana, but a fella by the name of Otto Graham, the real greatest "winner" that ever played QB and a guy who was not just a dominant QB but also a pretty good corner back and return man! I think we can both agree that if Brady or Manning had to do that, they'd both have been knocked out of the league in their first couple years ...
Again. "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME" as Herman Edwards says. Brady has more victories than any other QB. He does what he needs to do to help the team win. As Lebron and Jordan learned it is not how much you can score. It is how do I make my team better. Russell understood that. Wilt maybe he didn't. Maybe scoring and taking over the team was NOT the best way to play. And sometimes the team with the BETTER talent doesn't win because it doesn't know how to play together. Great leaders bring out the best in the players around them. You measure greatest purely by individual statistics and all I continue to say is that is NOT THE ONLY thing to look at. It is but a piece in the puzzle but you don't see it.
Don't be silly ... of course I understand all that. You're not going to hear me arguing for Dan Marino as the GOAT anytime soon even though he very may well have been the best pure passer to ever play. However, I think we view the value of individual excellence and team success far differently. You rate players based 60% on the team success they experienced and only 40% on their individual excellence, whereas I would probably rate players based 80% on their individual excellence and just 20% on their team success.
For example, I absolutely rate Barry Sanders as higher on the RB GOAT list than Emmitt Smith despite having almost zero team success his entire career and Emmitt having won 3 rings.
And, again, everyone seems to agree with me when rating every positional player in the NFL ... except QB's ... and I find that silly.
This cheating thing is funny and I know you said you don't personally view Brady as a cheater. All I want to finally say on this topic is this. Brady won his 4th superbowl AFTER the whole deflategate mess with balls I am sure where inflated perfectly in the Superbowl and took down a legendary defense in Seattle. The pressure on him had to be immense and he played maybe his greatest superbowl game. And all I see on the TV is Atlanta pumping in crowd noise and the Giants in trouble for the walkie talkie thing and the steelers supposedly deflating stuff or the Vikings warming balls under a heat lamp during cold weather. I am tired tired tired of everyone saying the Pats cheat but everyone else in the NFL is innocent. NO TEAM is innocent but haters hear and see what they want. Does Jerry Rice still have some stickem left? We could use it for the superbowl..Wait did that help you JOE. Nahh..They hate us cause they ain't us!!!!
I pretty much agree with everything you said above so I don't have much of a comment ... anyone who thinks Brady or Rice or Bonds, etc., was only "great" due to "cheating" is just silly. However ... I really do think a lot of football fans view Brady as a sort of "Barry Bonds" figure ... an all-time great but one that deserves an asterx next to his name and no other GOAT type QB (Manning, Montana, Graham, Unitas) has that sort of stigma attached to them.
-
-
01-05-2017, 05:31 AM #28
I would put Brady over manning for the simple fact that Manning has always had at least one Superstar receiver. Brady had Moss for a short time and now Gronk. Brady had Edleman and Welker going for 1000 yard seasons.
-
01-05-2017, 06:17 AM #29
Have you considered that Manning may have turned Harrison and Wayne into stars?
They weren't like Moss coming to the Patriots ... Harrison was drafted #19 after averaging just 700 yards and 5 TD's per year in college ... Wayne was drafted at the end of the first round after averaging around 600 yards and 5 TD's per year in college ... these guys were NOT bonafide star NCAA receivers, let alone NFL receivers when they came to Manning ... he turned them into stars! If anything you could say that's a credit to Manning ...
-
01-05-2017, 11:41 AM #30
Ok now this is getting crazy. Now Peyton gets credit for turning Wayne and Harrison into the stars they were. If you ever watched some of these games you could tell that this is a crap statement. Harrison was a beast receiver with great hands and the same with wayne. And moss was floundering in Oakland but with Brady he breaks the WR record for touchdowns. I am tired of the Brady bashing. With me you AGREE that manning had better receivers but now I guess they were crap and it was all Peyton. SMH
-
Originally Posted by Goose97 
Reply With Quote
