Poll: Greatest qb ever?

[rocketman818]

[QUOTE=Jameis1of1;14367976]So what? You can only control what you can control. The NFL might have 40 teams some day and play 18-20 games a year ... that won't detract from Brady's 5 rings at all.
We have already established you are a massive Brady fan, to the extent that you are emotionally invested in him, so you're statements lack credibility at times.
Poo-pooing Otto going to the title game in TEN STRAIGHT YEARS and winning SEVEN championships just comes off as ridiculous

I am indeed a brady fan but my previous post was backed very much by stats not just opinion. You on the other hand are giving Otto way to much credit. He can do no wrong in YOUR eyes. He simply played in less games. FACT!!! He had less playoff games to play to get to championship. FACT!!!! And due to the fact that your giving Otto credit for winning championships at a time when there was more than one league! He didn't even have to face some of the greatest players during some of those years as they WERE PLAYING IN A DIFFERENT LEAGUE!!!! It is the same reasons we don't just add in peoples records from the USFL or Canadian football league. I am sorry but this is not the same. So I feel justified in excluding some of those title game appearances and championships. And I love how you SPECULATE to try and prove a point saying NFL might have 40 teams. Stay in reality and not some BS world that "might" happen.



Comparing stats in different eras, let alone eras that are separated by multiple decades is an exercise in futility and quite absurd. Suck QB's in the modern NFL like Brock Osweiler have "stats" that put HOF QB's from past eras to shame .. and you know this ... I don't like silly and dishonest debating.

Oh so you don't want to compare stats just title game appearances and championships. I love it when you twist something so it suits your purposes. And if your argument was that Otto has less yards and td passes because the league didn't throw as much then ok I can see that but an INT is an INT. I don't care how you spin it. His TD to INT ratio is pathetic. You want to give him credit for titles but not the crappy stats he has. Okay ya that makes sense.



You're being silly and you know it. If the NFL morphs into a flippin touch football league where the "suck" QB's are throwing for 6k+ yards per year there are going to be tons of "average" QB's that will retire with far more impressive "stats" than Brady ... and that will mean NOTHING. The only way you can compare players from different eras is to look at how they dominated or failed to dominate their own era ... and Otto dominated his era to a FAR, FAR GREATER EXTENT than Tom Brady has dominated his.


Here you go again with the "If the NFL morphs". Stay in reality. You do this too much. Ya someday somebody with throw for 600yrds per game on average. LOL.

I agree he wasn't as knowledgeable as he could have been but his point was still valid and I didn't take it that he was being "salty" ... if he was being "salty" he would have said he was the GOAT, but he didn't say that, he brought up Otto/Sammy as he knew one had "won" a whole lot more than Brady has.

My main point was he was not knowledgable. The salty is my opinion. You don't have to say your better to be salty. You just may not want to recognize anyone else either.



Ugh, we have been over this. The NFL is NOT just about the offensive side of the ball ... Brady has had great defenses, great special teams and the GOAT Coach for his entire career ... that is a whole lot more important than having a great receiver ... when Brady had an all-world receiver (Moss) he couldn't win a single ring

My point is that you cannot win if you don't score!!! Of course defense is important as well but it is not like Montana had crappy defenses either. And I was comparing the SB victories. In those victories brady's cast on the offensive side of the ball was not as accomplished as Montana for example. Again FACT!!!

I don't see how that is a point in Brady's favor at all, I really don't. It's just a completely meaningless stat ... you say he had to "work harder" ... why? When you have a great receiver you often force throws to him to keep him happy ... a balanced offense is much, much more dynamic than one with one great receiver. Matt Stafford was an MVP candidate for the first time in his career this year, his first year without Megatron. I just don't view this as some sort of great plus on Brady's side.

Ok so know we are using Matt Stafford as a benchmark. Maybe Matt Stafford would force throws but doesn't mean Montana did or Brady would if given that kind of talent. You do this WAYYYYY too much. Anyone in the world will tell you having a HOF WR is a benefit. Only YOU could turn it into "You often force throws" Haha. Ya I am sure Montana forced all those throws to Rice. Fortunately for Montana though Rice caught them. Sorry but this is a moronic comment..Haha. Please start another poll asking if having a HOF WR doesn't make your job easier..Uggggg

Moss was great when he was with the Pats and Brady never won a single ring with him ... that sort of destroys your entire argument, no?

Absolutely not!!! Brady broke the TD record at the time with Moss even though I have previously stated Moss was not at his peak either. He was on the downside of his career. My point was for the first time with a HOF type receiver Brady breaks all these passing records and Pats go undefeated until the Superbowl. It makes your job easier thus the perfect record until superbowl and passing records. And brady's td pass to Moss was their last score before the "defense" that you love to say wins so many games couldn't make it stand up.


I appreciate you finding that article as I hadn't seen that ... however, while think the author makes valid points in regards to "stats", I think it also obviously demonstrates how great the Pats "teams" have been during Brady's tenure. So yes, has he had worse defenses and worse teams, he would have better "stats" ... but he;d also have less "rings", so it's a trade off and this is why I feel EVERYTHING needs to be weighed and not just stats or just team success.

This part here was more to prove a point where some people love to give accolades during the regular season for passing yards and TD's that lead to MVP years and pro bowl appearances and All-pro selections. My point is basically to show you that yes Brady may have less rings in this example but he would have had even HIGHER personal achievements than someone like Manning. I rather have the rings. Manning can have the MVP's and passing records and all-pros. Unfortunately people like you will kill brady saying he didn't have enough PERSONAL achievements and therefore is not the GOAT


There are obviously a ton, and I do mean a ton, of "Brady haters" and even just "Pats haters" in general, so you certainly have a point. However, I am not one of those people. I don't care about the scandals though acknowledge they will always be a stain on Brady's legacy to "many" fans and I believe that is a fact that can't even be argued.

I wasn't necessarily calling you a hater for basing your opinon on the scandals just more a fact that people will hate no matter what and to your point if they want to argue that brady should not be the GOAT because of that then that is why I say they must believe that no one cheats at all but Brady.

Again, TEAMS not individual players "win games". Brady has never won a single ring ... the Patriots have won 5 of them. I do think it's pretty obvious that Rodgers is "better" than Brady and not just "physically" but as a QB in its entirety ... however the Packers are NOT the Patriots, period.

Playing to win the game from the QB position would mean to have the best possible QB rating you can have and the best possible TD-to-INT ration you can have as obvioously throwing picks does not help one "win the game" and Rodgers QB rating and TD-to-INT ratio blow Brady's out of the water which means Brady "wins" more because his "team" is simply better and not because he as an individual is better. This is a very simple concept to grasp.

You pick one stat or one argument and make it the "sole" reasoning. It isn't that simple. Rodgers for example takes more sacks which in turn puts his team in a worse field position. I could also argue that as I said before. Rodgers may be more physically gifted than Brady. Meaning he can escape the pocket or roll out to buy some time. In fact Brady cannot do this so he is even more limited which makes what he does even more impressive. He must diagnose the correct defense and make the right call quickly or throw the ball away.

True but Otto won two more titles and appeared in three more title games ... and again, "team success" does not equal "individual greatness".

Here we go again with these crappy title appearances that I have already explained. Hey didn't Doug flutie win a bunch of CFL titles. LOL


You probably shouldn't bring that up in a debate as Brady being drafted #199 is a knock on him and not a positive. He simply was NOT viewed as a franchise changer coming out of college, not even by the Patriots and he did not have to be such as he was drafted to a very good team with an established QB in place ... that's not any different than Rodgers but it's entirely different than a guy like Peyton Manning who had the weight of the world heaped on his shoulders from Day 1.

The weight of his shoulders!! Hahahahahaha. I don't care where your drafted. It is what you do when you get there. I mean Aaron Rodgers wasn't the first overall pick either. He slid to the bottom of the round as well. But why? And he was supposed to go higher. People running drafts make mistakes all the time. And I even said if Brady came out today people still wouldn't pick him first overall. I already admitted he doesn't have the physical traits they look for. All the more remarkable for what he has done!!


Now that I can agree with 100%!!!!



No ... because most sports talking heads and fans are nonsensical, illogical loons ... I have always said that if Pip just happened to get hurt in every single Eastern Conference series and Jordan lost all 6 Finals series but played the same way, he should still be considered just as "great" as he is now ... people are just goofy and don't understand logic and put far too much emphasis on "team success".

If pip just happened to get hurt. CAN YOU PLEASE STOP DOING THIS!!!!!!! IF IF IF IF IF. You love to live in what if world. Can you stay in reality? You can assume this would happen and this might happen but guess what we know what DID happen. That is all that matters.


That's a childish and illogical statement ... you're better than that ... I think.



Let me know when you start saying Trent Dilfer is higher on the GOAT list than Dan Marino ... team success is soooooooo over-rated when it comes to evaluating individual excellence'

Again I said you must take the entire body of work. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS!!!! Regular season and Post season. Dilfer is not better than Marino because of 1 superbowl because he doesn't have the regular season achievements to go with it. Your rational is backwards sometimes. Otto is great because he won championships but we shouldn't look at his crappy numbers. Manning is good because he has great numbers and mvp awards because of his greatness in the REGULAR season but we shouldn't count championships only his regular work.

You said it yourself above, Rodgers is "better" than Brady. And, it's not just that he is more "physically gifted", it's that he's flat out "better". Everyone knows Vince Carter was more "physically gifted" than Kobe Bryant but NO ONE in their right mind would ever say VC was "better" than Kobe. Everyone knows Randy Moss was more "physically gifted" than Jerry Rice but no one in their right mind would say Moss was "better" than Rice. However, many believe Rodgers is "better" than Brady.

Your proving my point. I NEVER SAID Aaron Rodgers was better than brady. I just said he was physically better but if that is all that matter then you would be correct. In basketball if all that matter was being physically better than VC would be better than kobe. It is more than that. Just like in football it is more than just the physical side. I already said that but you don't seem to understand. I was giving Rodgers the fact he was physically better but said Brady was better without it because he is stronger in other areas. Brady is Kobe. He may not be as physically gifted as VC or Rodgers but just better overall. Nice try trying to say physical was all that matter but I never said that.

Brady is the new-era Montana which is fitting as that was his idol growing up. However just as many considered Marino to literally be "better" than Montana, so to do many consider Rodgers to be "better" than Brady, but unlike Marino, Rodgers has a ring as well ...

Again I see this here as the same debate I just said. Marino might have the physical trait to throw the ball better but Montana like Brady is the better overall QB.

I love Brady but I don't think he'll ever be viewed like Jordan or Gretzky ... those guys aren't just considered the "greatest" but the "best" as well, whereas Brady, fair or not, will probably always be viewed as a system QB and a product of Bellichick and the Pats great organization, even more so than people consider Montana a product of Bill Walsh. A guy like Rodgers and even Manning, Favre, Marino and others don't have that "stigma" attached to them.

My counter to this is that you know what Belichick record is before brady? It is 41-55. Do I really need to tell you the record of them together. System QB ya right. The system is Brady. Too bad you don't and will never see that.

[14smoke2x]

Good stuff guys, valid points. We could debate this forever without a clear winner. We could debate Nicklaus vs Woods too, and that's easier. It's golf, no team involved just golfer vs golfer. But there is no clear cut winner, just like debating QBs which is obviously much more difficult with the entire team, coaching, etc.

[Jameis1of1]

I am indeed a brady fan but my previous post was backed very much by stats not just opinion.

Your reply was solid and have some good points ... it also had some weaknesses but that's okay.

You on the other hand are giving Otto way to much credit. He can do no wrong in YOUR eyes.

Not at all. I would have no problem elevating someone above him one day. It just bugs me when people trumpet Brady as the GOAT based on his ring count when Otto's "team success" resume is far more impressive. Is Otto a better pure passer than Brady? No way! But the "winning" issue bugs me as Otto is undoubtedly the greatest "winner" in football history.

He simply played in less games. FACT!!! He had less playoff games to play to get to championship. FACT!!!! And due to the fact that your giving Otto credit for winning championships at a time when there was more than one league! He didn't even have to face some of the greatest players during some of those years as they WERE PLAYING IN A DIFFERENT LEAGUE!!!! It is the same reasons we don't just add in peoples records from the USFL or Canadian football league. I am sorry but this is not the same. So I feel justified in excluding some of those title game appearances and championships. And I love how you SPECULATE to try and prove a point saying NFL might have 40 teams. Stay in reality and not some BS world that "might" happen.

As I've said before, those are fair points and I'm not saying "you are wrong", I just happen to disagree with you, that's all.

Oh so you don't want to compare stats just title game appearances and championships.

You know full well it's idiotic to compare stats from different eras. You know that. Why are you playing dumb? You're smarter than that.

I love it when you twist something so it suits your purposes

The exact opposite is what's happening here. You are the one that is trying to use stats that cannot be compared to each other to prove your point and that is dishonest debating. For example, if you can claim that Brady is better than Otto because his completion percentage was higher, I could turn around and claim every cornerback in Otto's day was better than Richard Sherman today because they allowed a lower completion percentage against them ... but that would be insane as the game is played differently today. Again, these are not hard concepts to grasp.

And if your argument was that Otto has less yards and td passes because the league didn't throw as much then ok I can see that but an INT is an INT. I don't care how you spin it. His TD to INT ratio is pathetic.

Stop playing dumb, you're smarter than that! Look at the TD-to-INT ratio of all-time greats like Otto, Baugh, Unitas, Bradshaw, Fouts, etc ... ALL the old-era guys have horrible TD-to-INT ratios, NOT because they weren't as accurate as modern players but because the game was played differently, the DB's could beat the living crap out of receivers, tons of contact was allowed, etc., ... if Unitas played in this era he could have a 4-to-1 TD/Int ratio whereas if Brady or even Rodgers played in Unitas' era their ratio would plummet down to the 1/1 range ... I believe you know this and are just trying to be slick.

You want to give him credit for titles but not the crappy stats he has. Okay ya that makes sense.

Yup, it does, it makes perfect sense. You can ONLY coompare stats of players in the same era ... to compare stats from players in different eras in the height of foolishness ... and again, believe you know that.

Here you go again with the "If the NFL morphs". Stay in reality. You do this too much. Ya someday somebody with throw for 600yrds per game on average. LOL.

You can't be this illogical and hypocritical. You are not living in reality at all. You are literally pretending that the game was played the same way in Otto's day as it is today, that if Otto played in today's NFL his stats would be the same as they were in his own day ... that is utterly absurd.

If what you are saying is true than ALL the modern QB's even suck ones like Osweiler, etc., are infinitely "better" than the all-time greats of past eras ... I'm sorry but that's just stupid and if you really believe this and continue to debate from this alternative reality, there just is no point in debating with you as you simply don't have any credibility and are debating from a point of ignorance rather than knowledge and logic.

My point is that you cannot win if you don't score!!! Of course defense is important as well but it is not like Montana had crappy defenses either. And I was comparing the SB victories. In those victories brady's cast on the offensive side of the ball was not as accomplished as Montana for example. Again FACT!!!

I agree as that is an obvious fact and not a matter of conjecture.

Ok so know we are using Matt Stafford as a benchmark. Maybe Matt Stafford would force throws but doesn't mean Montana did or Brady would if given that kind of talent. You do this WAYYYYY too much. Anyone in the world will tell you having a HOF WR is a benefit. Only YOU could turn it into "You often force throws" Haha. Ya I am sure Montana forced all those throws to Rice. Fortunately for Montana though Rice caught them. Sorry but this is a moronic comment..Haha. Please start another poll asking if having a HOF WR doesn't make your job easier..Uggggg

Was Moss the greatest WR Brady ever played with? Did he win even one of his 5 rings with Moss? Case closed.

Absolutely not!!! Brady broke the TD record at the time with Moss even though I have previously stated Moss was not at his peak either. He was on the downside of his career. My point was for the first time with a HOF type receiver Brady breaks all these passing records and Pats go undefeated until the Superbowl. It makes your job easier thus the perfect record until superbowl and passing records. And brady's td pass to Moss was their last score before the "defense" that you love to say wins so many games couldn't make it stand up.

You're blaming the Pats defense? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ... dude they only gave up 17 points!!!!!!!!! The Patriots who had the greatest offense in the history of football that year and who Tom Brady himself scoffed when he heard they'd only score 17 points ... only managed 14 ... FOURTEEN ... I don't care how you slice it that will always be a massive, massibe blight on Brady's career ... that was the biggest upset since the Namath Jets and it was against an undefeated, all-world offense led by the supposed "Goat" ... crazy. It's not as if the Pats lost 49-48, they lost because Brady and that unstoppable offense only put 14 measly points on the board ... this is a fact whether you like it or not.

This part here was more to prove a point where some people love to give accolades during the regular season for passing yards and TD's that lead to MVP years and pro bowl appearances and All-pro selections. My point is basically to show you that yes Brady may have less rings in this example but he would have had even HIGHER personal achievements than someone like Manning. I rather have the rings. Manning can have the MVP's and passing records and all-pros. Unfortunately people like you will kill brady saying he didn't have enough PERSONAL achievements and therefore is not the GOAT

I don't "kill" Brady as have him 4th on my GOAT list ... that's certaily not killing him.

I wasn't necessarily calling you a hater for basing your opinon on the scandals just more a fact that people will hate no matter what and to your point if they want to argue that brady should not be the GOAT because of that then that is why I say they must believe that no one cheats at all but Brady.

I agree with you on this point.

You pick one stat or one argument and make it the "sole" reasoning. It isn't that simple. Rodgers for example takes more sacks which in turn puts his team in a worse field position. I could also argue that as I said before. Rodgers may be more physically gifted than Brady. Meaning he can escape the pocket or roll out to buy some time. In fact Brady cannot do this so he is even more limited which makes what he does even more impressive. He must diagnose the correct defense and make the right call quickly or throw the ball away.

Rodgers is better ... but ... Brady has the greater resume, period.

Here we go again with these crappy title appearances that I have already explained. Hey didn't Doug flutie win a bunch of CFL titles. LOL

Again, it just comes off as ridiculous that you hate on Otto's accomplishments ... I doubt Brady himself would do the same

The weight of his shoulders!! Hahahahahaha.

Laugh if you want ... but that means a great, great deal ... Brady was an after-thought draft pick ... Manning was drafted to be a franchise savior ... and came through.

I don't care where your drafted. It is what you do when you get there. I mean Aaron Rodgers wasn't the first overall pick either. He slid to the bottom of the round as well. But why? And he was supposed to go higher. People running drafts make mistakes all the time. And I even said if Brady came out today people still wouldn't pick him first overall. I already admitted he doesn't have the physical traits they look for. All the more remarkable for what he has done!!

Sort of points to Bellichick and the greatness of the Pats organization, no?

If pip just happened to get hurt. CAN YOU PLEASE STOP DOING THIS!!!!!!! IF IF IF IF IF. You love to live in what if world. Can you stay in reality? You can assume this would happen and this might happen but guess what we know what DID happen. That is all that matters.

No, that is not all that matters. "What ifs" are some of the most important questions that can be asked as the answers can easily reveal one's biases or flat out illogical thought prcocesses.

Again I said you must take the entire body of work. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS!!!!

I agree with that but you jump back and forth as if you don't actually believe that at all.

Otto is great because he won championships but we shouldn't look at his crappy numbers.

Otto ALSO has MORE individual awards than Brady! He dominated his era more so than Brady has dominated his ... you fail to grasp this fact because you have chosen to live in the alternate reality where modern stats can be directly measured against ancient era stats ... it's absurd.

Manning is good because he has great numbers and mvp awards because of his greatness in the REGULAR season but we shouldn't count championships only his regular work.

What? Manning took FOUR DIFFERENT coaches and two different franchises to the SuperBowl and won two rings ... what do you mean we shouldn't count that?

Your proving my point. I NEVER SAID Aaron Rodgers was better than brady. I just said he was physically better but if that is all that matter then you would be correct. In basketball if all that matter was being physically better than VC would be better than kobe. It is more than that. Just like in football it is more than just the physical side. I already said that but you don't seem to understand. I was giving Rodgers the fact he was physically better but said Brady was better without it because he is stronger in other areas. Brady is Kobe. He may not be as physically gifted as VC or Rodgers but just better overall. Nice try trying to say physical was all that matter but I never said that.

You missed my point entirely ... that or you just ignored it. Rodgers really is "better" than Brady, that's the point.

Again I see this here as the same debate I just said. Marino might have the physical trait to throw the ball better but Montana like Brady is the better overall QB.

I feel like you're being dishonest on purpose. Rodgers is NOT just more physically gifted than Brady, he's actually the "better" QB ... and it's not even that close.

My counter to this is that you know what Belichick record is before brady? It is 41-55. Do I really need to tell you the record of them together. System QB ya right. The system is Brady. Too bad you don't and will never see that.

Belichick coaches the Browns with garbage ... now, take a look at the Pats record without Brady and then compare that to the Packers record without Rodgers ... the Pats win close to 70% of their games without Brady ... Brady is NOT the system. I honestly believe that the majority of fans and even so-called "experts" beieve Bellichick is more responsibile for the Pats success than Brady is ... and I agree with them. You can disagree and that's fine but that doesn't change the fact that the stigma is out there and Brady will always be viewed as a "system QB" by quite a few folks.

[rocketman818]

Good stuff guys, valid points. We could debate this forever without a clear winner. We could debate Nicklaus vs Woods too, and that's easier. It's golf, no team involved just golfer vs golfer. But there is no clear cut winner, just like debating QBs which is obviously much more difficult with the entire team, coaching, etc.

I am not a golfer so maybe others can explain this but in golf since your using an instrument(golf clubs) are there regulations on them? I mean nowadays it seems like you always hear how this driver goes further or the balls are better. Is this really the case? If it is then you could never really debate Woods vs anyone from back in the day like Jack since the equipment is not standard. I mean when I see clubs in the store they are such wide ranging prices that obviously they must be made differently.

[14smoke2x]

Good question. The pros get the best of the best equipment nowadays from their sponsors. The USGA has certain types of regulations on everything, from clubs to putter grip. Now, the courses are longer and the equipment is better as is the competition, in the Nicklaus era the clubs were junk and the courses were shorter. You can debate the 18 majors for Jack vs 15 for Tiger all day, apples and oranges just like Otto vs Brady.

[rocketman818]

You have brady 4th on your GOAT list. HAHAHA. I'm sorry but I really can take this debate seriously anymore. If you said brady was second okay maybe in some crazy world of your thinking but to put him 4th after his 5th superbowl and engineering one of the greatest comebacks ever!!! I'm done.

Your reply was solid and have some good points ... it also had some weaknesses but that's okay.



Not at all. I would have no problem elevating someone above him one day. It just bugs me when people trumpet Brady as the GOAT based on his ring count when Otto's "team success" resume is far more impressive. Is Otto a better pure passer than Brady? No way! But the "winning" issue bugs me as Otto is undoubtedly the greatest "winner" in football history.



As I've said before, those are fair points and I'm not saying "you are wrong", I just happen to disagree with you, that's all.



You know full well it's idiotic to compare stats from different eras. You know that. Why are you playing dumb? You're smarter than that.



The exact opposite is what's happening here. You are the one that is trying to use stats that cannot be compared to each other to prove your point and that is dishonest debating. For example, if you can claim that Brady is better than Otto because his completion percentage was higher, I could turn around and claim every cornerback in Otto's day was better than Richard Sherman today because they allowed a lower completion percentage against them ... but that would be insane as the game is played differently today. Again, these are not hard concepts to grasp.



Stop playing dumb, you're smarter than that! Look at the TD-to-INT ratio of all-time greats like Otto, Baugh, Unitas, Bradshaw, Fouts, etc ... ALL the old-era guys have horrible TD-to-INT ratios, NOT because they weren't as accurate as modern players but because the game was played differently, the DB's could beat the living crap out of receivers, tons of contact was allowed, etc., ... if Unitas played in this era he could have a 4-to-1 TD/Int ratio whereas if Brady or even Rodgers played in Unitas' era their ratio would plummet down to the 1/1 range ... I believe you know this and are just trying to be slick.




Yup, it does, it makes perfect sense. You can ONLY coompare stats of players in the same era ... to compare stats from players in different eras in the height of foolishness ... and again, believe you know that.



You can't be this illogical and hypocritical. You are not living in reality at all. You are literally pretending that the game was played the same way in Otto's day as it is today, that if Otto played in today's NFL his stats would be the same as they were in his own day ... that is utterly absurd.

If what you are saying is true than ALL the modern QB's even suck ones like Osweiler, etc., are infinitely "better" than the all-time greats of past eras ... I'm sorry but that's just stupid and if you really believe this and continue to debate from this alternative reality, there just is no point in debating with you as you simply don't have any credibility and are debating from a point of ignorance rather than knowledge and logic.



I agree as that is an obvious fact and not a matter of conjecture.



Was Moss the greatest WR Brady ever played with? Did he win even one of his 5 rings with Moss? Case closed.



You're blaming the Pats defense? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ... dude they only gave up 17 points!!!!!!!!! The Patriots who had the greatest offense in the history of football that year and who Tom Brady himself scoffed when he heard they'd only score 17 points ... only managed 14 ... FOURTEEN ... I don't care how you slice it that will always be a massive, massibe blight on Brady's career ... that was the biggest upset since the Namath Jets and it was against an undefeated, all-world offense led by the supposed "Goat" ... crazy. It's not as if the Pats lost 49-48, they lost because Brady and that unstoppable offense only put 14 measly points on the board ... this is a fact whether you like it or not.



I don't "kill" Brady as have him 4th on my GOAT list ... that's certaily not killing him.



I agree with you on this point.



Rodgers is better ... but ... Brady has the greater resume, period.



Again, it just comes off as ridiculous that you hate on Otto's accomplishments ... I doubt Brady himself would do the same



Laugh if you want ... but that means a great, great deal ... Brady was an after-thought draft pick ... Manning was drafted to be a franchise savior ... and came through.



Sort of points to Bellichick and the greatness of the Pats organization, no?



No, that is not all that matters. "What ifs" are some of the most important questions that can be asked as the answers can easily reveal one's biases or flat out illogical thought prcocesses.



I agree with that but you jump back and forth as if you don't actually believe that at all.



Otto ALSO has MORE individual awards than Brady! He dominated his era more so than Brady has dominated his ... you fail to grasp this fact because you have chosen to live in the alternate reality where modern stats can be directly measured against ancient era stats ... it's absurd.



What? Manning took FOUR DIFFERENT coaches and two different franchises to the SuperBowl and won two rings ... what do you mean we shouldn't count that?



You missed my point entirely ... that or you just ignored it. Rodgers really is "better" than Brady, that's the point.



I feel like you're being dishonest on purpose. Rodgers is NOT just more physically gifted than Brady, he's actually the "better" QB ... and it's not even that close.



Belichick coaches the Browns with garbage ... now, take a look at the Pats record without Brady and then compare that to the Packers record without Rodgers ... the Pats win close to 70% of their games without Brady ... Brady is NOT the system. I honestly believe that the majority of fans and even so-called "experts" beieve Bellichick is more responsibile for the Pats success than Brady is ... and I agree with them. You can disagree and that's fine but that doesn't change the fact that the stigma is out there and Brady will always be viewed as a "system QB" by quite a few folks.

[bakemeister52]

Brady is a good quarterback but not of all time. Different times, less games, better offensive and defensive lines! Joe Montana was good quarterback when he played but the 50's and 60's and 70's had some really good quarterbacks during that time frame.

[Jameis1of1]

Good question. The pros get the best of the best equipment nowadays from their sponsors. The USGA has certain types of regulations on everything, from clubs to putter grip. Now, the courses are longer and the equipment is better as is the competition, in the Nicklaus era the clubs were junk and the courses were shorter. You can debate the 18 majors for Jack vs 15 for Tiger all day, apples and oranges just like Otto vs Brady.

Do both players have all-time stats? For example, how far under par each averaged per round for their careers and things like that? I like to play golf but I don't know much about the history or who was the greatest and things like that ...

You have brady 4th on your GOAT list. HAHAHA. I'm sorry but I really can take this debate seriously anymore. If you said brady was second okay maybe in some crazy world of your thinking but to put him 4th after his 5th superbowl and engineering one of the greatest comebacks ever!!! I'm done.

One single game cannot mean that much when comparing full careers ... if one single game means that much to you ... you lose credibility.

I definitely have Brady below Otto and Montana ... he could be third but I have a hard time putting him ahead of Peyton ... I really do. I wouldn't crush someone for putting Brady ahead of Manning, I just have a hard time doing so as I think Peyton was a franchise carrier and Brady was a cog in the machine ...

Brady is a good quarterback but not of all time. Different times, less games, better offensive and defensive lines! Joe Montana was good quarterback when he played but the 50's and 60's and 70's had some really good quarterbacks during that time frame.

Yeah, the debate will go on forever and ever and ever I think ... I mean Brady is NOT Jordan and yet there are still many people who feel Jordan is below either/or Bill Russell and Kareem ... and they can make a very strong case for either player to be ranked ahead of Jordan. Anyone who thinks Brady is the "undisputed" GOAT is just silly.

[rocketman818]

Your only one game comment is laughable. This isn't some random game in October that was meaningless. It was a championship game that saw the biggest comeback in Super Bowl history. The fact that you give not one single extra meaning to that game puts your judgement in question as well. I never said to use this one game over a career. And I think you know I was not saying that but are you that bad at listenening? I hope not. I was pointing out the this was just the latest in a career that has many many accomplishments. These are the moments that define greatest. The drive by elway. Montana's drive that ended in "the catch", Jordan's Utah game. You will say teams win championships not players but it is the performance of players that make up the team. And when the qb is the most important player on the field and has to make all the correct calls and throws for a team to win then yes a majority of the praise goes to them. I take solace in the fact that most pundits and people in general believe Brady is the goat. Find me one poll or website that has Otto graham as the greatest and I will find you three that show you Brady. Your belief is the minority. Your not even winning your own poll. Haha. Not even close.

[Jameis1of1]

Your only one game comment is laughable. This isn't some random game in October that was meaningless. It was a championship game that saw the biggest comeback in Super Bowl history. The fact that you give not one single extra meaning to that game puts your judgement in question as well. I never said to use this one game over a career. And I think you know I was not saying that but are you that bad at listenening? I hope not. I was pointing out the this was just the latest in a career that has many many accomplishments. These are the moments that define greatest. The drive by elway. Montana's drive that ended in "the catch", Jordan's Utah game. You will say teams win championships not players but it is the performance of players that make up the team. And when the qb is the most important player on the field and has to make all the correct calls and throws for a team to win then yes a majority of the praise goes to them. I take solace in the fact that most pundits and people in general believe Brady is the goat. Find me one poll or website that has Otto graham as the greatest and I will find you three that show you Brady. Your belief is the minority. Your not even winning your own poll. Haha. Not even close.

It was an awesome game and I agree it was Brady's "signature moment" for sure ... it was absolutely magnificent ... however ... it was still just one game indeed and I am not going to place Brady over others on my GOAT list based on one game. In the same way had Brady thrown 6 picks and the Pats lost, that one horrible game would not make me drop Brady below a guy like Terry Bradshaw on my GOAT list, as again, it would have simply been one game.

As for your comment about polls ... they mean nothing ... the recent Presidential election taught us that, lol.

In all seriousness, I don't care what "the majority" think though I will say that you're wrong if you really think "the majority" of football fans think Brady is the GOAT as most football fans hate Brady and the Pats ... regardless, I sincerely don't care what other people think. I don't value anyone's "opinion" more highly than my own and while I know that sounds arrogant, it is what it is.