Is Brady now the greatest ever?

I know but look at the rules. average wrs can play now.

 

Montana was great, no argument from me. In fact, maybe he was the best of all time. It was also said that he was the king of dink and dunk. People like to use that to criticize Brady. I just think Montana and Brady were both tough competitors with football IQs off the charts. I don't understand why some have a problem giving Brady credit.

 

Pittsburgh got to play Seattle in the super only because of Ben and if anybody knew football they'd know the play I'm talking about and Ben won the Super Bowl against Arizona in dramatic fashion no matter how he played so stop pi$$ing on Ben!!

 

bottom line is if lynch carries one more time this thread doesn't exist.

 

Since you asked. Montana is, and IMO, will always be the best.

 

NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! Ben got us to that Super Bowl with his play in the playoffs. And... NO DOUBT ABOUT IT, Ben SUCKED in that Super Bowl.

 

True that. Just goes to show you the fine line between greatness and also-ran.

 

if you look at championships he is in the discussion but when talking about just playing the position and talent..... marino and jim Kelly are both better imo. never had the advantages of qbs now. I mean how good would those buffalo teams have been with these wide open rules?lol

 

This is such a difficult question to answer. Brady has to be in the conversation for best ever, but people lose sight that he too played with a lot of good players. Keep in mind those early Patriot teams had defenses that were in the Top 10 and a couple Top 5 in scoring defense.

Brady is also a perfect qb (Brees too) as well for this era of football where it is all about matchups, quickly getting rid of the ball, and taking advantage of the rules where the receivers have such a huge advantage once beyond 5 yards. I could see guys like Montana, Marino, and Elway playing in today's game, but I am not so sure I could see guys like Brees or Brady playing 25-30 years ago and I think they may have been decapitated if they played when Bradshaw and Staubach were in their prime.

Also the idea that Brady was a great deep thrower when he had Moss has to be taken into account that he often had tons of time to throw the ball and Moss was the type of receiver who could help any qb look good because of his insane leaping ability and height. Dante Culpepper looked like a Top 5 QB when he was Minnesota without Moss he was all washed up.

But the guy has been to 6 SB, his team has won 4, 2 time MVP, 3 time SB MVP - it would be kind of crazy if he wasn't in the conversation.

 

This is the kind of talk I don't get. Are you being sarcastic? If Lynch scores and the Seahawks win, do you still ask this question? Because if that had happened, it wouldn't have changed one thing about the game Tom had. That's why I can't stand SB rings being used as personal statistics. If Brady had played a good game, Seattle wouldn't have even been in a position to win. Those two picks were all on Tom, and both costly.

I don't think I have the mojo to deal with someone that thinks Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning. Tom didn't have half the talent Peyton did? First of all, there's more to a supporting cast than "skill position" players. Manning never had an offensive line or a defense, and that's a BFD. He also designed and ran his own system. And to a large degree he made his own talent, too. He had Harrison and Wayne, who were both great players in their own right, although he obviously made them better. But he consistently made stars out of guys who were just there. Austin Collie, Pierre Garcon, Eric Decker, Emmanuel Sanders, Jacob Tamme, Julius Thomas. Some starter gets injured or leaves, and the next no-name steps in like a Steelers LB in the 90s.

All Brady has over Peyton is Super Bowl titles, which he earned with various degrees of personal success, and all of which have been tainted by cheating. To dismiss that by giving he and his team the benefit of the doubt ("They probably would have won anyway" "Probably other teams do it too" "So and so said it's no big deal" "Tom said he didn't know it was happening, and I believe him") is just too much homer-ism even for me. I'll argue all day and night about the SB XL, and the perceived blown calls that went in our favor, but if the Steelers had been cheating - gaining an illegal upper hand either by spying or tampering with equipment - I'd have nothing to say, and honestly, I'd do some serious thinking about whether I still wanted to be a fan. I certainly wouldn't lay claim to any victories, even if we'd won by 30 points, and didn't need to cheat.

As for this Super Bowl, the way it ended, I'm disgusted. New England was forced to (as far as I know) play on the up and up, and will surely point to this game as proof that their cheating didn't matter, because they deserved to win anyway, and would have won anyway. And some people will be stupid enough to buy that. The Seahawks figuratively and literally handed the game to New England with a play call worse than anything I ever saw out of BA. It was the NFCCG all over again. One team winning because the other team couldn't seem to stand the thought of it, and insisted upon losing. What Green Bay did, and now what Seattle has done, is like watching a sprinter stop one foot before the finish line to tie his shoe, and then get passed by the guy 10 feet behind him. I found myself saying to my wife, "If you're the Patriots, how can you even be proud of winning like that?" She said, "Look who you're talking about."

 

That is an interesting point. You look at baseball and nobody really denies that Ted Williams isn't on the short list or is maybe the greatest hitter that ever lived and his Red Sox teams never won a World Series. But with QBs they get judged so much on championships. I agree that Marino and Kelly were truly outstanding/gifted QBs. I also think Troy Aikman would not be in the HOF if he wasn't blessed in being able to play behind the best O line of all time and handing off to one of the best backs of all time - i.e. if he is on another team I really doubt he has the talent to lift them to being a winner.

Brady deserves a lot of accolades, but he has also played with a franchise that even with their black eyes (Spygate, Deflategate) is also simply the best run franchise in the NFL at this time and they have been going on 15 years.

 

Without a doubt....and it pains me to say it...Yes......4-2 in Super Bowls.....6 times in 14 years????? 43% of the time they are in the big dance....and they were always in contention to get it (9 afc champ games in 14 years).... You can hate him all you want...and I do......but there simply has never been any QB as successful as he has been...yes its a team game...but his team has done it (legally or illegally) for over a decade.

HACK

 

How Edelman didn't get the MVP tonight I'll never know. Brady was a game manager tonight. How many of his passes went over 10 yds? They were dump offs to the RB or short throws to Edelman and Amendola. If I watched the game as a newbie I would not be impressed by anything he did tonight.

He's had a great career, and where he ranks is subject to debate. Tonight's performance was more about game planning than individual performance imo.

 

He will be considered to be the best ever. Played in 6 superbowls over his career and won 4 of them. I really wanted to see the Seahawks win just for the fact of deflate-gate surrounding the Patriots. Second time they've been accused of cheating. Spy-gate found guilty, now deflate-gate ... the jury is still out. No one will remember deflate-gate a few years down the road. The Patriots won 4 in 14 years? Congratulations to them. We still won 4 in 6 years.

 

No, I'm not being sarcastic, Snack. And no, I probably wouldn't have asked the question had the Pats lost. But, it's a fair question don't you think? It's being asked, discussed, debated in a lot of different venues tonight, not just our forum. I think Brady's accomplishments have at the very least put him in the discussion.

 

You do have to give Brady all the credit for doing what he has done.

I just got to say that this offense the Pats run ... I just don't get why everyone in the NFL doesn't run it.

Brady NEVER gets hit, and I don't think it is really because he is super special. Most of the plays they run flushes out all the defenders to the point where you get an easy one-on-one throw, or a dump off pass before the pressure is there. I don't think I have ever seen Brady take a quarter of the hits Ben has, or most QB's for that matter.

The Welker/Amendola position on this team just gets wide open on every play, I just don't get how that is possible with no name WR's on the outside?

I just feel if you have the patience to run their offense, it isn't super hard to make these 5 yard/dumpoff throws that he makes. All you can really say is he is consistent enough to do it an an elite level. It just seems to me, the system makes Brady look really good as well.

 

I ****ing hate Tom Brady. Now I hate Pete Carroll's stupid choking ass too.

 

You can just stop at that point, because you've offered the reason why nobody does/can run it. No other team in the NFL can build o-lines and proper blocking schemes like the Pats do.

 

Then you must acknowledge that what happened today should not have an effect on whether or not Brady is the best anything. So I don't think it's a fair question. It's a common one, but that's what has me so cranky. The Seahawks say, "Here, we don't want to win this game. You take it." And the world erupts with, "Is Tom Brady the greatest of all time??" The SB stuff just flat out drives me nuts. In a world where we're all so obsessed with stats, I don't understand how everyone gets this one so, so wrong.

I think Brady played a pretty average game in today's NFL. He got some yards and TDs, but also threw two terrible INTs, worth a 14 point swing (minus 7 for the Pats on the first one, plus 7 for the Seahawks on the second one). I'm not sure how he got MVP, except to say the quarterbacks for both teams are always the MVPs of every game, because the position is so V. So yeah, I don't get how this average performance, which he arrived at by cheating, + 3 Super Bowls he won while cheating get him into a serious level of the discussion. He should be in it, and then quickly dismissed.

 

He's awesome and there's no doubt about it. It's hard for me to put anyone ahead of Joe but Tom has more records than Columbia House and that's nothing to sneeze at. The guy can play when it counts and barring two ridiculously lucky plays from the 2 worst Super Bowl winners of all time he would actually have 5 rings. Wouldn't matter though. Some people's blind hatred would keep them from giving him credit if he ended child hunger and cured cancer. But whether he's the "greatest" or not really doesn't matter to me. I just like knowing that he's better than Peyton Manning. LOL.

 

Lets not forget that Joe Montana NEVER threw an INT in the Super Bowl. Never.

 

When the chips were on the table, Tom Brady put the Pats on his back and scored 2 TDs in 8 minutes to get the win. Peyton had opportunity against the Saints. He threw a pick 6. He had an opportunity to stop the bleeding last year against the Seahawks, he threw a pick.

Brady> Manning 8 days a week. I've always said that.

And Brady has turned his share of also-rans into big names. Remeber Dion Branch? Reche Caldwell? Both big contributors to the Pats who went to other teams and did zilch.

 

"If you're the patriots, how can you be proud of winning like that".

I can't even believe someone would write such a thing. They were down by 10 and stormed back to take the lead. Then with the game on the line, they came up with a huge forced turnover. It's not like Seattle is guaranteed to win if they run the ball. NE could very well have stuffed them. NE made the plays when it mattered the most and they put up 28 points against the best defense in the league. Of course they should be proud of the way they won

 

I agree 100%. Having made it to two more Superbowls is a positive.

Brady and Montana both were beaten by the Giants... But the Giants REALLY beat Montana down.

From 85-87 Montana went to the playoffs three times- all one and dones and did not throw any TDs.

Montana is the best Superbowl QB but Brady is probably better. What kind of numbers would Brady have with Rice, Taylor snd Craig?