How come Terry Bradshaw is never brought up in the GOAT argumemt?

[PATS16N0]

And stats are just as team oriented as championships. I really don't know how any of you can argue otherwise. Give Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers or Peyton Manning four Calvin Johnsons and watch them throw 70 touchdowns in a season and pass for 7,000 yards.

 

If you want to argue it's a team sport, I'll agree, but a team sport is a team sport. Peyton Manning isn't catching (or dropping) his own passes, and neither is Tom Brady.

 

Often times great stats just mean a team is lopsidedly stacked on offense and that always results in failure.

[amfootball]

Try reading before commenting.

 

Of course they are team sports, but individuals can make much greater impacts.

 

And what Lebron did is irrelevant to my argument... football players want to win championships too, but they cannot do it by themselves to anywhere near the extent of basketball.

I was not arguing that but they are all team sports and Manning had one of the best teams in the 00's decade year after year with the likes of Wayne, Harrison, James, Clark, Freeney, Mathis, etc. whereas Lebron had garbage in Cleveland.

[Shane Bond]

I was not arguing that but they are all team sports and Manning had one of the best teams in the 00's decade year after year with the likes of Wayne, Harrison, James, Clark, Freeney, Mathis, etc. whereas Lebron had garbage in Cleveland.

 

Do you realize, offense is just 1/3rd of the team and it requires a team to win. How many times do we need to explain this?.

 

Oh wait, just saw your id.

[TAPLOOK]

Do you realize, offense is just 1/3rd of the team and it requires a team to win.

 

That's hilarious coming from you.

[Shane Bond]

That's hilarious coming from you.

Good Morning - 10 > 12.

 

Whats the wisdom you will be preaching to the audience today?.

[TAPLOOK]

Good Morning - 10 > 12.

 

Whats the wisdom you will be preaching to the audience today?.

Were do you get 12?

[TAPLOOK]

Na, plenty of teams have been regular contenders without elite QBs. Steelers did it for years.

 

It certainly helps though.

They did?

[AntonMcG]

I was not arguing that but they are all team sports and Manning had one of the best teams in the 00's decade year after year with the likes of Wayne, Harrison, James, Clark, Freeney, Mathis, etc. whereas Lebron had garbage in Cleveland.

 

Who mentioned Manning? Not everything is a Manning/Brady debate.

 

Good lord you will never change.

[AntonMcG]

They did?

 

They did. Steelers were in the playoffs nearly every year, won a few Super Bowls, and were always considered contenders. I don't know how you can argue with that.

[TAPLOOK]

They did. Steelers were in the playoffs every year, won a few Super Bowls, and were always considered contenders. I don't know how you can argue with that.

They had Ben for those two SB's and didn't always contend consistently without him or even with him for that matter..

[AntonMcG]

They had Ben for those two SB's and didn't always contend consistently without him or even with him for that matter..

 

So you consider him an elite QB? Fair enough, but I disagree.

 

They were beaten in another Super Bowl, that is 3 Super Bowls in 6 years... I really don't get your point.

 

QB is the most important position, but it is nowehere near the sum of the parts. I believe there are only 4 elite QBs in this league, Manning, Rodgers, Brady and Brees... they have 3 Super Bowls in the last 10 years.

 

I don't believe you can win a SB with a bad QB, but history has proven on countless occasions that you can win with a decent one.

[TAPLOOK]

So you consider him an elite QB? Fair enough, but I disagree.

 

They were beaten in another Super Bowl, that is 3 Super Bowls in 6 years... I really don't get your point.

 

QB is the most important position, but it is nowehere near the sum of the parts. I believe there are only 4 elite QBs in this league, Manning, Rodgers, Brady and Brees... they have 3 Super Bowls in the last 10 years.

 

I don't believe you can win a SB with a bad QB, but history has proven on countless occasions that you can win with a decent one.

Who said elite? Very good and tough? Yes.

 

We are talking about consistency and only Brady and Manning give a team that hope every single year.

[The Old Crow]

I think the reason is simple: Because Montana was clearly better.

Therefore, there is no GOAT argument when it comes to these guys.

However, I do think Terry Bradshaw is vastly underrated. Championships are championships, and a quarterback is no spectator at the Superbowl. A great quarterback can overcome a bad supporting cast, and a bad quarterback can undo a great team. Terry Bradshaw has four championship rings. That makes him a certifiable bad #$$

Stats are for losers, as they say.

Who is, ultimately, the better quarterback? A proflic passer who has incredible mechanics and skills, but can't handle the bright lights and comes up short all the time, maybe wilts before a tough defense, and gets eaten by the pressure of the moment, or a guy who may be "inferior" in some ways, but superior in other, more intangible ways, and leads you to the glory land?

As a Patriot fan who came crashing back down to earth with the helmet catch, and who has remained a lot more humble there ever since, I've come to acknowledge the truth behind Bill Belichick's line, "stats are for losers."

My point is stats and MVP's would come into play if you are comparing multiple Championship winners like Unitas, Montana, or Brady as an example. Bradshaw has the Championships, but the stats are way to far off for a GOAT Argument for him. But not winning at all , has to drop Marino below the multiple championship guys. Elway would be right below these guys, and Peyton would move up with another Championship. Flacco is not even close to being in the argument, although he is a proven winner. No guy without a single Championship can be GOAT because you have failed as the main player of a team, in the ultimate goal. We know there are many reasons why the player may have failed, but you can't be GOAT.

[amfootball]

Do you realize, offense is just 1/3rd of the team and it requires a team to win. How many times do we need to explain this?.

 

Oh wait, just saw your id.

Team games all around. Lebron is also just one of 12 guys.

[The Old Crow]

Oh, okay, because I thought it was very relevant.

Media and fans constantly try to individualize team sports because it makes it so much easier to sell and worship players.

The fact is, no one player has ever won a championship in football by being the only great player on their team, and they never will.

It has happened in basketball, soccer and every individual sport there is. But not football, because not even the QB has enough control over a game to do it themselves.

You arguments are as lazy as your justification for Flacco's mediocrity being that 'he just wins'... completely negating the fact that 52 other players on his team also 'just win'.

As I stated earlier, this line of thinking is a Colt 's apologist way of thinking in the Brady versus Manning comparisons. Owner Jim Irsay , in his comments towards Peyton, has totally justified the Patriots fans arguments about the relevance of Championships. Your ring obsessed owner brings it up all the time in tweets, locker rooms chats, and on NFL films. I'm a big Peyton fan by the way, but he needs another Championship or two to get to the top of the GOAT argument.

[The Old Crow]

Team games all around. Lebron is also just one of 12 guys.

Even Labron knew he legacy needed Champuonships which is why he set up things in Miami.

[amfootball]

Even Labron knew he legacy needed Champuonships which is why he set up things in Miami.

All of the greats are judged on championships and the role they played in helping their teams win the rings. That will never change no matter the sport.

[PATS16N0]

That's the thing. It really won't. At the end of the day, it all comes down to championships.

Stats are only relevant in the minds of fans in the present. Ten years after a guy retires, it isn't really brought up. It's forgotten.

 

A 20 year old today never watched Marino play. They might hear he had great mechanics, a great arm, a great this, a great that, but it doesn't ultimately matter because they also know he has no championships. He also knows Montana had four. This is why people who weren't even alive to see Joe Montana play still put him as #1 of all time.

 

Sure, there are plenty of 50 year old Dolphin fans that still claim and will tell people that Dan Marino was really the best, but it comes off as an old man rambling.

When Marino first retired, people had him in the GOAT discussion, "it was just a shame he never got that ring." Now, time has ran its course and he isn't even close to the GOAT discussion. Twenty years from now he'll be a footnote in NFL history. Montana, though, is still regarded as GOAT by many, maybe even most, including people who didn't see him take a single snap.

 

In the end, championships are what stand the test of time, and rightfully so. That's what matters.

 

Individual stats scatter with the wind shortly after that player retires.

[Shane Bond]

That's the thing. It really won't. At the end of the day, it all comes down to championships.

Stats are only relevant in the minds of fans in the present. Ten years after a guy retires, it isn't really brought up. It's forgotten.

A 20 year old today never watched Marino play. They might hear he had great mechanics, a great arm, a great this, a great that, but it doesn't ultimately matter because they also know he has no championships. He also knows Montana had four. This is why people who weren't even alive to see Joe Montana play still put him as #1 of all time.

Sure, there are plenty of 50 year old Dolphin fans that still claim and will tell people that Dan Marino was really the best, but it comes off as an old man rambling.

When Marino first retired, people had him in the GOAT discussion, "it was just a shame he never got that ring." Now, time has ran its course and he isn't even close to the GOAT discussion. Twenty years from now he'll be a footnote in NFL history. Montana, though, is still regarded as GOAT by many, maybe even most, including people who didn't see him take a single snap.

In the end, championships are what stand the test of time, and rightfully so. That's what matters.

Individual stats scatter with the wind shortly after that player retires.

Bradshaw - 4

Brady - 3

As per your logic, Bradshaw is better.

[AntonMcG]

My point is stats and MVP's would come into play if you are comparing multiple Championship winners like Unitas, Montana, or Brady as an example. Bradshaw has the Championships, but the stats are way to far off for a GOAT Argument for him. But not winning at all , has to drop Marino below the multiple championship guys. Elway would be right below these guys, and Peyton would move up with another Championship. Flacco is not even close to being in the argument, although he is a proven winner. No guy without a single Championship can be GOAT because you have failed as the main player of a team, in the ultimate goal. We know there are many reasons why the player may have failed, but you can't be GOAT.

 

I get that for many sports, but I just can not buy into it in a sport like football where everything relies on everyone doing their own job.

 

Brady led his team to a would-be game winning drive only to have a horrible drop by Welker. Manning led his team to mutiple leads only to be let down by a defense in the fourth quarter. Both of them also won Super Bowls because the rest of their team showed up when it counted, things could have went different ways had the players around both of them executed or failed to execute.

 

Yes, QB is the most important position in football... but that importance gets very condensed when you add 52 more players who have completely different roles.

[amfootball]

I get that for many sports, but I just can not buy into it in a sport like football where everything relies on everyone doing their own job.

 

Brady led his team to a would-be game winning drive only to have a horrible drop by Welker. Manning led his team to mutiple leads only to be let down by a defense in the fourth quarter. Both of them also won Super Bowls because the rest of their team showed up when it counted, things could have went different ways had the players around both of them executed or failed to execute.

 

Yes, QB is the most important position in football... but that importance gets very condensed when you add 52 more players who have completely different roles.

Lebron does not have his second ring without Allen's three either. It is what it is. No one player does it alone on any team but like you said the QB controls the game the most. Even Lebron does not have the ball in his hands every single offensive possession like the QB does in football. 

[The Old Crow]

I get that for many sports, but I just can not buy into it in a sport like football where everything relies on everyone doing their own job.

 

Brady led his team to a would-be game winning drive only to have a horrible drop by Welker. Manning led his team to mutiple leads only to be let down by a defense in the fourth quarter. Both of them also won Super Bowls because the rest of their team showed up when it counted, things could have went different ways had the players around both of them executed or failed to execute.

 

Yes, QB is the most important position in football... but that importance gets very condensed when you add 52 more players who have completely different roles.

 

You are certainly right about 52 guys, and the team concept to win Championships, but when we look at GOAT quarterback most NFL historians expect the greatest to overcome some of the mistakes of their team mates, and still lead their teams to Championships. 

 

Now, my criteria for GOAT would include Championships, MVP's, regular season stats, post season stats, team records, among other things, into a formula. That is why Bradshaw would not be ahead of a Montana or Unitas, but is still held in high regard as an all-time winner.

[-JJ-]

I get that for many sports, but I just can not buy into it in a sport like football where everything relies on everyone doing their own job.

 

Brady led his team to a would-be game winning drive only to have a horrible drop by Welker. Manning led his team to mutiple leads only to be let down by a defense in the fourth quarter. Both of them also won Super Bowls because the rest of their team showed up when it counted, things could have went different ways had the players around both of them executed or failed to execute.

 

Yes, QB is the most important position in football... but that importance gets very condensed when you add 52 more players who have completely different roles.

I like that description

[The Old Crow]

Lebron does not have his second ring without Allen's three either. It is what it is. No one player does it alone on any team but like you said the QB controls the game the most. Even Lebron does not have the ball in his hands every single offensive possession like the QB does in football. 

 

Again, the GOAT candidates are expected to lead their teams to Championships, and overcome obstacles and shortcomings of less talented team mates. That is what makes a great, the greatest.

[AntonMcG]

Who said elite? Very good and tough? Yes.

 

We are talking about consistency and only Brady and Manning give a team that hope every single year.

 

Very good... but not elite, and they consistently competed, and won more Super Bowls in the last ten years than Manning or Brady. That was down to a very talented team with good coaching.

 

I recognize the fact that the QB is becoming more important now than ever now but it still does not justify peoples attempt at individualizing the ultimate team sport. Recent history shows you do not need a great QB to go all the way... it certainly helps... but no QB should be measured by rings.

[PATS16N0]

Bradshaw - 4

Brady - 3

As per your logic, Bradshaw is better.

 

I certainly don't believe so, but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter if I believe Brady is the GOAT, or if a 50 year old 49'er fan is sure Montana remains the GOAT, or if you believe Peyton is the GOAT. What matters is what these players leave behind for posterity.

 

Future football fans that will be born next year will one day have their own quarterbacks, and they'll look back at some highlight clips that don't mean a whole lot to them, and they'll look at championships.

 

They'll know Joe Montana went to four Superbowls, won four Lombardis, and maybe they'll know he won 16 play off games.

 

They'll know Tom Brady went to five Superbowls and won three Lombardis and won at least 17 play off games.

 

And they'll know Peyton Manning went to two Superbowls, won one Lombardi, and won 9 play off games.

 

And history will judge them accordingly. Talking about stats, pocket presence, a mind for the game, football IQ, their spiral, or any of this other stuff, dies shortly after they both retire.

 

It's just the way that it is.

[AntonMcG]

Again, the GOAT candidates are expected to lead their teams to Championships, and overcome obstacles and shortcomings of less talented team mates. That is what makes a great, the greatest.

 

So then Montana should not be considered either? He had the misfortune of having great teams around him meaning he never got the chance to do it all himself.

 

Poor Joe.

[amfootball]

Very good... but not elite, and they consistently competed, and won more Super Bowls in the last ten years than Manning or Brady. That was down to a very talented team with good coaching.

 

I recognize the fact that the QB is becoming more important now than ever now but it still does not justify peoples attempt at individualizing the ultimate team sport. Recent history shows you do not need a great QB to go all the way... it certainly helps... but no QB should be measured by rings.

What should the measuring stick be then? Don't they play the game to win the championship? Stats are just a much a refelction of the team as wins. Look at Manning this year. Do you think he gets the TD record and league MVP if not for having the best trio of receivers in the league and a top RB in Moreno?

[AntonMcG]

I certainly don't believe so, but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter if I believe Brady is the GOAT, or if a 50 year old 49'er fan is sure Montana remains the GOAT, or if you believe Peyton is the GOAT. What matters is what these players leave behind for posterity.

 

Future football fans that will be born next year will one day have their own quarterbacks, and they'll look back at some highlight clips that don't mean a whole lot to them, and they'll look at championships.

 

They'll know Joe Montana went to four Superbowls, won four Lombardis, and maybe they'll know he won 16 play off games.

 

They'll know Tom Brady went to five Superbowls and won three Lombardis and won at least 17 play off games.

 

And they'll know Peyton Manning went to two Superbowls, won one Lombardi, and won 9 play off games.

 

And history will judge them accordingly. Talking about stats, pocket presence, a mind for the game, football IQ, their spiral, or any of this other stuff, dies shortly after they both retire.

 

It's just the way that it is.

 

That is the sad truth.

 

Not the way it should be, but the way it is.

[amfootball]

Aaron Rodgers perhaps sums this discussion up best:

"I really believe that you earn your paycheck during the season," Rodgers told Costas. "[You] play at a high level and get your team to the playoffs. And then the postseason is all about creating your legacy. The great quarterbacks are remembered for their playoff successes and triumphs and Super Bowl championships and Super Bowl MVPs. We've got one here, and we want to add to that."
 

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/52037/packers-49ers-ii-legacy-of-aaron-rodgers

[The Old Crow]

So then Montana should not be considered either? He had the misfortune of having great teams around him meaning he never got the chance to do it all himself.

 

Poor Joe.

 

The greats also make their teams better, and sometimes make teams look better than they are. We know that great teams don't always win Championships, they have to be earned. Montana had team talent, but got the job done, and has most of the other corresponding stats , along with the Championships. 

[AntonMcG]

What should the measuring stick be then? Don't they play the game to win the championship? Stats are just a much a refelction of the team as wins. Look at Manning this year. Do you think he gets the TD record and league MVP if not for having the best trio of receivers in the league and a top RB in Moreno?

 

Of course he doesn't. (And Moreno isn't a top RB, great adjustments by Manning at the LOS and big holes help him a lot).

 

There is no measurement, that is the point. We go back and forth on who is the greatest, and I am as guilty as anyone, but the fact remains that great teams win championships, not great QBs.

[AntonMcG]

The greats also make their teams better, and sometimes make teams look better than they are. We know that great teams don't always win Championships, they have to be earned. Montana had team talent, but got the job done, and has most of the other corresponding stats , along with the Championships. 

 

Soe he made Jerry Rice better, not vice versa?

[amfootball]

Of course he doesn't. (And Moreno isn't a top RB, great adjustments by Manning at the LOS and big holes help him a lot).

 

There is no measurement, that is the point. We go back and forth on who is the greatest, and I am as guilty as anyone, but the fact remains that great teams win championships, not great QBs.

More often than not, the best teams do not win the championship. A perfect example is the Red Sox this year. They were supposed to finish out of the playoffs and won the whole thing. I think when measuring greatness you look for players that help lead their teams to the rings. I don't think Jordan's Bulls were all that talented compared to the Celtics and Lakers of the 80's and they proved as much when he was gone in the mid 90's as they did not even make it to the finals either year. The Pats of the 00's were not a great team offensively at all but Brady made the plays when needed to get them over the hump. Same with Montana. His niners played two nail biters with the Bengals and won both because of him. It is certainly a journey to get to the end but great players separate themselves when the stakes are the highest and that is what creates leagacies.

[BOTT]

That's the thing. It really won't. At the end of the day, it all comes down to championships.

Stats are only relevant in the minds of fans in the present. Ten years after a guy retires, it isn't really brought up. It's forgotten.

A 20 year old today never watched Marino play. They might hear he had great mechanics, a great arm, a great this, a great that, but it doesn't ultimately matter because they also know he has no championships. He also knows Montana had four. This is why people who weren't even alive to see Joe Montana play still put him as #1 of all time.

Sure, there are plenty of 50 year old Dolphin fans that still claim and will tell people that Dan Marino was really the best, but it comes off as an old man rambling.

When Marino first retired, people had him in the GOAT discussion, "it was just a shame he never got that ring." Now, time has ran its course and he isn't even close to the GOAT discussion. Twenty years from now he'll be a footnote in NFL history. Montana, though, is still regarded as GOAT by many, maybe even most, including people who didn't see him take a single snap.

In the end, championships are what stand the test of time, and rightfully so. That's what matters.

Individual stats scatter with the wind shortly after that player retires.

The legend of Ted Williams sure has diminished......

And when Joe Montana makes his radio rounds during the SB he is always asked about the the quarterbacks of his era he admires the most. The name he always mentions first isn't John Elway or Jim Plunkett...it's always Dan Marino.

[amfootball]

The legend of Ted Williams sure has diminished......

I had this discussion with my dad who is 80 and a life long Red Sox fan. Has Williams diminished in light of David Ortiz? My answer is yes. As great of a career as Williams had, Oriz is the real Mr. October.

[PATS16N0]

Not sure if that's sarcasm but I think it honestly has. I think most people, while tipping their hat to those guys, don't really believe they could survive in today's era and consider them old American sports icons more so than they consider them GOATs. Baseball is also slightly different than football.

 

I mean, when you see photographs of Babe Ruth sucking down a cigar with a giant mug of beer in his hand, it's sort of hard to imagine him tearing up the league today whether he still would or not.

[AntonMcG]

More often than not, the best teams do not win the championship. A perfect example is the Red Sox this year. They were supposed to finish out of the playoffs and won the whole thing. I think when measuring greatness you look for players that help lead their teams to the rings. I don't think Jordan's Bulls were all that talented compared to the Celtics and Lakers of the 80's and they proved as much when he was gone in the mid 90's as they did not even make it to the finals either year. The Pats of the 00's were not a great team offensively at all but Brady made the plays when needed to get them over the hump. Same with Montana. His niners played two nail biters with the Bengals and won both because of him. It is certainly a journey to get to the end but great players separate themselves when the stakes are the highest and that is what creates leagacies.

 

lol, I love how you try to put all the victories on the QBs back and fail to acknowledge the other plays the really won those teams championships.

[amfootball]

lol, I love how you try to put all the victories on the QBs back and fail to acknowledge the other plays the really won those teams championships.

You don't feel Jordan, Montana and Brady were most responsible for their teams rings? They have 11 Finals/SB MVPs among them.

[The Old Crow]

Soe he made Jerry Rice better, not vice versa?

 

 

Sure, but someone had to get Jerry the ball. That is why Raymond Berry and Jerry Rice are two of the top receivers of all time, because two of the GOAT quarterbacks were throwing to them. Also, those guys were multiple Championship receivers. The Championships really round out the resume, and without them, most historians drop you down a bit.