The Offseason Reading Series #12: My case for Peyton Manning as the greatest quarterback of all time

[chad72]

2 hours ago, GoPats said:

 

Maybe I missed it but did you cover turnovers at all? Part of the reason I ask is that I strongly believe offensive turnovers have a major correlation to defensive play. If your offense isn't turning the ball over and giving the opposing team a short field, it makes your defense's job easier. Brady's trailing Manning in career TDs by 83, but he's thrown 99 fewer interceptions in his career. They have almost an identical number of fumbles (28 for Manning, 27 for Brady). Overall, Manning had 279 turnovers in his career; Brady's had 100 fewer exactly, at 179. The fact that he rarely turns the ball over is a huge benefit to the Patriots' defense. 

 

Phenomenal write up, @21isSuperman

 

Good points, @GoPats

 

 

To me, two things made the difference in favor of Brady:

 

i) Turnovers due to Brady's better arm resulting in more incompletions than INTs compared to Peyton 

 

ii) QB sneaks in critical times to keep the chains moving on 3rd and 1 or 4th and 1. Those resulted in better time of possession for Brady's offenses, and reduced chances for opposing offenses to have short fields in the case of the Patriots.

 

 

However, in defense of Peyton, here are other points to consider:

 

i) With Peyton (and Luck) going to teams that desperately needed help getting back into the playoff picture, it infused a tendency of having to do more by themselves which result in more turnovers from the QB position. When Brady was not nearly the QB he was now, he could ride a D with many HOF'ers that were great scoring Ds too, and figured out he didn't have to force the issue. Once he became a better QB, those lessons were retained well and he could pick and choose spots to take risks as his career went on. 

 

ii) Special teams - Brady enjoyed outstanding special teams play when compared to Peyton's teams, poorly constructed from the 40th-53rd player, IMO, by Polian, were bottom dwellers in special teams field position. That hurts any offense's ability to put up points consistently, let alone against stellar Ds you face in the playoffs (whether it was a Dante Hall KR TD in KC he had to overcome or Ellis Hobb's returns in the 2006 AFCCG he overcame or Scifres punting show in San Diego or Hester return TD in SB he overcame or onside kick recovery in SB or even Peyton's last game in Indy vs Jets where a 53 yard KR was given up to Cromartie, these are just playoff examples, us Colts fans really suffered more during the regular season). Those things matter in close games to swing momentum and Peyton felt he had to do more consistently because of the lack of a well rounded team.

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, GoPats said:

 

I thought you wrote a pretty thorough and compelling summary on everything. I respect your opinion of course! But as you pointed out, it's something so heavily subjective that two people could go back and forth, point-to-point, for days on end. 

 

You mentioned how Brady has had better coaching and, on the whole, defenses (and I agree). But in my opinion, that's a result of how the Colts and Patriots were built, respectively. Manning has usually had the better offensive weapons. The Patriots were usually a bit more balanced and had better depth. 

 

Maybe I missed it but did you cover turnovers at all? Part of the reason I ask is that I strongly believe offensive turnovers have a major correlation to defensive play. If your offense isn't turning the ball over and giving the opposing team a short field, it makes your defense's job easier. Brady's trailing Manning in career TDs by 83, but he's thrown 99 fewer interceptions in his career. They have almost an identical number of fumbles (28 for Manning, 27 for Brady). Overall, Manning had 279 turnovers in his career; Brady's had 100 fewer exactly, at 179. The fact that he rarely turns the ball over is a huge benefit to the Patriots' defense. 

 

There are two other things about Brady that, for me, give him the edge. One is that while he's had the benefit of great coaching, he's the only "constant" from the players side. He's the only one with all five rings. It's not an accident, or luck, that they've been in the mix every single year since 2001. 

 

The second is his overall winning percentage as a QB. I realize that is a "team stat" but no position in any sport has the kind of impact on wins and losses as a QB does in football. They don't keep track of win/loss records for guards, or defensive linemen. The object of the game is to win, right? And no one's done that better at the position than Brady.

 

Since February, it seems like most major outlets are just referring to Brady as the GOAT... you see a lot of players... Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger, Reggie Wayne (in case you don't believe me, lol)... saying he's the greatest ever. Media people, current players, past players... even the sport's most iconic video game has gotten in on it with Madden's "GOAT Edition." 

 

Overall, this is a tricky topic in a lot of ways. Brady is certainly not the best athlete to play the position. He doesn't have a cannon for an arm. He doesn't have the physical ability of an Andrew Luck or Rodgers. But he's had what I think can only be described as the "most decorated" career of any NFL player. Does "most decorated" mean he's the GOAT? Just my opinion but I think it has to. It's all about results. 

 

Great write-up though man, truly. I enjoyed reading it. 

 

Does 'most decorated' mean rings? If so that is a team accomplishment. Brady didn't throw a pick in the end zone to get a ring (Seattle). Brady didn't quit doing the things to win the game. (Atlanta). Brady didn't make two super bowl winning field goals himself. So IMHO super bowl wins are more of a team thing.

[GoPats]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

Does 'most decorated' mean rings? If so that is a team accomplishment. Brady didn't throw a pick in the end zone to get a ring (Seattle). Brady didn't quit doing the things to win the game. (Atlanta). Brady didn't make two super bowl winning field goals himself. So IMHO super bowl wins are more of a team thing.

 

Well if the intent is to take credit away from any specific player, there is always a way to do that. 

 

He didn't intercept Russell Wilson in the end zone, but he did walk off the field about two minutes earlier having erased a 10-point deficit and putting his team up by four. He didn't call Atlanta's plays but he did lead a furious, 25-point comeback in a quarter-and-change. He didn't kick two game-winning field goals, but he drove the team down in a tie game situation into range for Vinatieri to do his thing.

 

(Side note: That last one... that one's always baffled me. And I'm a big AV fan obviously. But the way some people refer to it, you would think he drilled a couple of 80-yard field goals to win those games. Those were not particularly difficult kicks, and in the Pats-Panthers SB, he had one blocked and missed one outright, so the fact that he even had to line another up at the end of the game was really his own doing. AV's best performance ever was the Snow Bowl/Tuck Rule game. That game tying kick... just insane that he hit that. Even AV said he probably hits it less than five times out of ten, or something like that. Anyway....)

 

We could do the same exercise with Manning, who would probably have zero rings without help from his defenses in Indy (they played out of their minds in the '06 post season) or Denver (one of the most dominant defensive units I've ever seen... I mean, they don't give the Super Bowl MVP to a defensive player very often. Nine times, I think, in 51 games. Point is, it always takes a team effort in this sport. 

 

Either way, it's not just about the championships, though that is the primary reason why. 

 

We can add that Brady is already no worse than 4th all time in just about all of the most important statistical categories for QBs, and will only improve on those numbers for however long he decides to play. If he outlasts Brees and plays three or four more seasons, he could pass Manning in several categories. 

 

He's won two individual MVPs (including the one and only unanimous choice in the history of the league) and four Super Bowl MVPs. 

 

He's got a .773 winning percentage, combined, for the regular season and playoffs. The Patriots could go 0-16 next year and he would still lead that category... by a mile. 

 

I know what you're going to say here - "team accomplishments." Right? But the guy was the winning QB on Super Bowl teams 15 years separated from each other. He is the constant. Brady made the Patriots who they are. I don't know if Belichick would have ever succeeded without him and I don't know if Brady would have ever succeeded elsewhere without BB. 

 

Again, if the object of the game is to win... not to pile up stats or Pro Bowls or anything... then I don't know who could possibly be the GOAT other than Brady.

 

 

 

[crazycolt1]

12 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

Well if the intent is to take credit away from any specific player, there is always a way to do that. 

 

He didn't intercept Russell Wilson in the end zone, but he did walk off the field about two minutes earlier having erased a 10-point deficit and putting his team up by four. He didn't call Atlanta's plays but he did lead a furious, 25-point comeback in a quarter-and-change. He didn't kick two game-winning field goals, but he drove the team down in a tie game situation into range for Vinatieri to do his thing.

 

(Side note: That last one... that one's always baffled me. And I'm a big AV fan obviously. But the way some people refer to it, you would think he drilled a couple of 80-yard field goals to win those games. Those were not particularly difficult kicks, and in the Pats-Panthers SB, he had one blocked and missed one outright, so the fact that he even had to line another up at the end of the game was really his own doing. AV's best performance ever was the Snow Bowl/Tuck Rule game. That game tying kick... just insane that he hit that. Even AV said he probably hits it less than five times out of ten, or something like that. Anyway....)

 

We could do the same exercise with Manning, who would probably have zero rings without help from his defenses in Indy (they played out of their minds in the '06 post season) or Denver (one of the most dominant defensive units I've ever seen... I mean, they don't give the Super Bowl MVP to a defensive player very often. Nine times, I think, in 51 games. Point is, it always takes a team effort in this sport. 

 

Either way, it's not just about the championships, though that is the primary reason why. 

 

We can add that Brady is already no worse than 4th all time in just about all of the most important statistical categories for QBs, and will only improve on those numbers for however long he decides to play. If he outlasts Brees and plays three or four more seasons, he could pass Manning in several categories. 

 

He's won two individual MVPs (including the one and only unanimous choice in the history of the league) and four Super Bowl MVPs. 

 

He's got a .773 winning percentage, combined, for the regular season and playoffs. The Patriots could go 0-16 next year and he would still lead that category... by a mile. 

 

I know what you're going to say here - "team accomplishments." Right? But the guy was the winning QB on Super Bowl teams 15 years separated from each other. He is the constant. Brady made the Patriots who they are. I don't know if Belichick would have ever succeeded without him and I don't know if Brady would have ever succeeded elsewhere without BB. 

 

Again, if the object of the game is to win... not to pile up stats or Pro Bowls or anything... then I don't know who could possibly be the GOAT other than Brady.

 

 

 

League MVPs are voted on by none bias people. Fandom has zero to do with it.

[Dingus McGirt]

Belichick...nothing further need be said.

 

[21isSuperman]

6 hours ago, GoPats said:

 

I thought you wrote a pretty thorough and compelling summary on everything. I respect your opinion of course! But as you pointed out, it's something so heavily subjective that two people could go back and forth, point-to-point, for days on end. 

 

You mentioned how Brady has had better coaching and, on the whole, defenses (and I agree). But in my opinion, that's a result of how the Colts and Patriots were built, respectively. Manning has usually had the better offensive weapons. The Patriots were usually a bit more balanced and had better depth. 

 

Maybe I missed it but did you cover turnovers at all? Part of the reason I ask is that I strongly believe offensive turnovers have a major correlation to defensive play. If your offense isn't turning the ball over and giving the opposing team a short field, it makes your defense's job easier. Brady's trailing Manning in career TDs by 83, but he's thrown 99 fewer interceptions in his career. They have almost an identical number of fumbles (28 for Manning, 27 for Brady). Overall, Manning had 279 turnovers in his career; Brady's had 100 fewer exactly, at 179. The fact that he rarely turns the ball over is a huge benefit to the Patriots' defense. 

 

There are two other things about Brady that, for me, give him the edge. One is that while he's had the benefit of great coaching, he's the only "constant" from the players side. He's the only one with all five rings. It's not an accident, or luck, that they've been in the mix every single year since 2001. 

 

The second is his overall winning percentage as a QB. I realize that is a "team stat" but no position in any sport has the kind of impact on wins and losses as a QB does in football. They don't keep track of win/loss records for guards, or defensive linemen. The object of the game is to win, right? And no one's done that better at the position than Brady.

 

Since February, it seems like most major outlets are just referring to Brady as the GOAT... you see a lot of players... Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger, Reggie Wayne (in case you don't believe me, lol)... saying he's the greatest ever. Media people, current players, past players... even the sport's most iconic video game has gotten in on it with Madden's "GOAT Edition." 

 

Overall, this is a tricky topic in a lot of ways. Brady is certainly not the best athlete to play the position. He doesn't have a cannon for an arm. He doesn't have the physical ability of an Andrew Luck or Rodgers. But he's had what I think can only be described as the "most decorated" career of any NFL player. Does "most decorated" mean he's the GOAT? Just my opinion but I think it has to. It's all about results. 

 

Great write-up though man, truly. I enjoyed reading it. 

 

Very well-written response!  The players/surrounding talent thing is a very strong argument.  Peyton always had the offensive weapons, but not the defensive.  Brady has usually had a very good defense and great coaching, but not always the defensive weapons.  If Brady had Clark, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, and Edgerrin James, who knows what he could have done?  At the same time, if Manning was coached by Belichick and had guys like Bruschi, Asante Samuel, and Willie McGinest on his side, who knows how his teams could have done?

 

Personally, I always hated how the Colts surrounded Peyton with so much offensive talent.  I'm of the opinion that great quarterbacks like Peyton, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers can make their surrounding guys better.  Peyton can make Blair White into a viable option, for example.  I would have liked to see the Colts use higher picks on the defensive side and let Peyton use his transcendental abilities to make mid-late round picks into decent offensive contributors.  In addition, as you mentioned, Brady has worked with many different guys whereas Peyton has Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne for nearly his entire career in Indy.

 

Regarding turnovers, as someone who wants to see Brady lose every game he plays (sorry....not sorry), it's infuriating to me how he can go weeks or even months without an interception.  He has 9 interceptions in the last 2 years, which is absolutely insane.  He plays such an efficient and smart game.

 

I don't think we'll ever reach any sort of consensus on this, but it's certainly fun to discuss.  Appreciate you responding and typing a very well thought out post.

[Superman]

6 hours ago, GoPats said:

Again, if the object of the game is to win... not to pile up stats or Pro Bowls or anything... then I don't know who could possibly be the GOAT other than Brady.

 

Yo!

 

Wins are team accomplishments -- heavily influenced by the QB of course, more than any other position in team sports, but QB can't and don't win games on their own. They're only on the field half the time. And that includes in the playoffs and SB, when you're playing better competition, when coaching is even more important, kicking is super critical, etc. So I have to reject your argument above.

 

However, in Brady's case, his team's success, particularly in the playoffs, and his play in those games, creates such a strong argument in his favor that it's impossible to ignore. It can't be explained away by saying 'teams win games.' His impact is monumental, and the results are overwhelming.

 

I've always said that rings matter, but I don't think they are a defining factor, including in Brady's case. But unlike Bradshaw, for instance, Brady has monster stats, clutch performances and a sustained peak performance. It's not and never will be "Brady has five rings, that makes him the GOAT." All other factors have to be considered. In Brady's case, there are no considerable flaws or shortcomings on his resume. He has the individual stats, he has the iconic playoff performances, and he's done it over a considerable period of time with a varied supporting cast. 

 

I still think that if you swap Manning and Brady, the Pats would have had just as much success, and I don't think Brady would have been able to duplicate Manning's career.  But that's an alternate reality that we don't live in. In this reality, I don't have a problem admitting that the Patriots postseason success -- especially the last SB -- have tipped the scales in Brady's favor, in my eyes.

[2006Coltsbestever]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yo!

 

Wins are team accomplishments -- heavily influenced by the QB of course, more than any other position in team sports, but QB can't and don't win games on their own. They're only on the field half the time. And that includes in the playoffs and SB, when you're playing better competition, when coaching is even more important, kicking is super critical, etc. So I have to reject your argument above.

 

However, in Brady's case, his team's success, particularly in the playoffs, and his play in those games, creates such a strong argument in his favor that it's impossible to ignore. It can't be explained away by saying 'teams win games.' His impact is monumental, and the results are overwhelming.

 

I've always said that rings matter, but I don't think they are a defining factor, including in Brady's case. But unlike Bradshaw, for instance, Brady has monster stats, clutch performances and a sustained peak performance. It's not and never will be "Brady has five rings, that makes him the GOAT." All other factors have to be considered. In Brady's case, there are no considerable flaws or shortcomings on his resume. He has the individual stats, he has the iconic playoff performances, and he's done it over a considerable period of time with a varied supporting cast. 

 

I still think that if you swap Manning and Brady, the Pats would have had just as much success, and I don't think Brady would have been able to duplicate Manning's career.  But that's an alternate reality that we don't live in. In this reality, I don't have a problem admitting that the Patriots postseason success -- especially the last SB -- have tipped the scales in Brady's favor, in my eyes.

If we were doing an all-time draft I would take Peyton as I have Posted but when I do my lists I weigh Rings in there. I tend to lean toward guys that have been better on the biggest stages if they have comparable Stats - Bradshaw doesn't. That is why I have Brady 1, Montana 2, and Peyton 3. In Basketball I do the same thing with Jordan 1, Magic 2, and Kareem 3. - All who I think are better than LeBron that is 3-5 in Finals. Whether that is right or wrong is debatable. Having said that Peyton is still Top 3 at worse so I am not even dissing him.

[Superman]

Scott Kacsmar's twitter has been on fire today, just by the way... Here's a sample:

 

 

[GoPats]

15 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

Very well-written response!  The players/surrounding talent thing is a very strong argument.  Peyton always had the offensive weapons, but not the defensive.  Brady has usually had a very good defense and great coaching, but not always the defensive weapons.  If Brady had Clark, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, and Edgerrin James, who knows what he could have done?  At the same time, if Manning was coached by Belichick and had guys like Bruschi, Asante Samuel, and Willie McGinest on his side, who knows how his teams could have done?

 

 

Always fun to speculate through the hypotheticals! It's funny but when Manning was drafted and the Colts were still in the AFC East, I sort of envisioned a long-standing rivalry between him and Drew Bledsoe. Two former #1 overall picks in the same division for a decade or so, lol... funny how things work out. 

[GoPats]

12 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Yo!

 

Wins are team accomplishments -- heavily influenced by the QB of course, more than any other position in team sports, but QB can't and don't win games on their own. They're only on the field half the time. And that includes in the playoffs and SB, when you're playing better competition, when coaching is even more important, kicking is super critical, etc. So I have to reject your argument above.

 

However, in Brady's case, his team's success, particularly in the playoffs, and his play in those games, creates such a strong argument in his favor that it's impossible to ignore. It can't be explained away by saying 'teams win games.' His impact is monumental, and the results are overwhelming.

 

I've always said that rings matter, but I don't think they are a defining factor, including in Brady's case. But unlike Bradshaw, for instance, Brady has monster stats, clutch performances and a sustained peak performance. It's not and never will be "Brady has five rings, that makes him the GOAT." All other factors have to be considered. In Brady's case, there are no considerable flaws or shortcomings on his resume. He has the individual stats, he has the iconic playoff performances, and he's done it over a considerable period of time with a varied supporting cast. 

 

I still think that if you swap Manning and Brady, the Pats would have had just as much success, and I don't think Brady would have been able to duplicate Manning's career.  But that's an alternate reality that we don't live in. In this reality, I don't have a problem admitting that the Patriots postseason success -- especially the last SB -- have tipped the scales in Brady's favor, in my eyes.

 

Hey! Good to see you bud. 

 

I totally get what you're saying and would agree with the notion that "team accomplishments" have to be weighed as such. But the factor that I think pushes it over the edge for me is longevity, which you hit on in your reply. If Brady had a 3-year window where the Patriots were among the league's elite, that would be one thing. It just seems that regardless of who he's throwing the ball to, or who is playing D, the results are more or less the same. 

 

I also agree that there is far more to consider... it's not just about "rings." Every QB's legacy is made up of different components and story lines and each has to sort of be judged in a vacuum. 

 

It's always interesting to ask the "what if" questions... what if Brady didn't end up in New England? Would any coach, other than Belichick, have had the stones to stick with him after Bledsoe came back? He didn't always light it up in 2001 but they won with him at the steering wheel. Manning, under Belichick, would have been something. Bill would have pressured him early on to be careful with the football, etc, and maybe the period from 1998-2006 would have been very different for him. He was very good back then but still struggled at times with picks (mostly just in bad spots) and wasn't quite yet the cerebral version of himself that we saw develop after those first few years. 

 

[GoPats]

18 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

League MVPs are voted on by none bias people. Fandom has zero to do with it.

 

Yes, I know that... not sure I understand what you're saying. It's voted on by various members of the media. In 2010, Brady got all 50 votes. Which is the only time that's happened. 

 

 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, GoPats said:

 

Yes, I know that... not sure I understand what you're saying. It's voted on by various members of the media. In 2010, Brady got all 50 votes. Which is the only time that's happened. 

 

 

It's not hard to understand my point. We throw the fandom out the window and Manning has won league MVP 5 times. Brady has won it 2 times.

MVP stands for most valuable player in the league. It was not voted on by fans of one team over another.

So Brady got all 50 votes?  OK, let me know when he gets three more league MVPs and then he can be in the conversation about who was the GOAT as far as none fans of one team is concerned.

You are apparently bias in your opinion because of your fandom geared at the Patriots.

There is nothing wrong with your opinion as everyone has a different opinion. But the opinion of non team fandom has said that Manning has won 3 more league MVPs than Brady.

The GOAT is all opinion and there is no clear cut player over another because of the difference of opinions. There is no answer now and there never will be because greatest of all time does not stop till time stops. When that time comes I guess we might have an answer.

[NannyMcafee]

20 hours ago, GoPats said:

 

Well if the intent is to take credit away from any specific player, there is always a way to do that. 

 

He didn't intercept Russell Wilson in the end zone, but he did walk off the field about two minutes earlier having erased a 10-point deficit and putting his team up by four. He didn't call Atlanta's plays but he did lead a furious, 25-point comeback in a quarter-and-change. He didn't kick two game-winning field goals, but he drove the team down in a tie game situation into range for Vinatieri to do his thing.

 

(Side note: That last one... that one's always baffled me. And I'm a big AV fan obviously. But the way some people refer to it, you would think he drilled a couple of 80-yard field goals to win those games. Those were not particularly difficult kicks, and in the Pats-Panthers SB, he had one blocked and missed one outright, so the fact that he even had to line another up at the end of the game was really his own doing. AV's best performance ever was the Snow Bowl/Tuck Rule game. That game tying kick... just insane that he hit that. Even AV said he probably hits it less than five times out of ten, or something like that. Anyway....)

 

We could do the same exercise with Manning, who would probably have zero rings without help from his defenses in Indy (they played out of their minds in the '06 post season) or Denver (one of the most dominant defensive units I've ever seen... I mean, they don't give the Super Bowl MVP to a defensive player very often. Nine times, I think, in 51 games. Point is, it always takes a team effort in this sport. 

 

Either way, it's not just about the championships, though that is the primary reason why. 

 

We can add that Brady is already no worse than 4th all time in just about all of the most important statistical categories for QBs, and will only improve on those numbers for however long he decides to play. If he outlasts Brees and plays three or four more seasons, he could pass Manning in several categories. 

 

He's won two individual MVPs (including the one and only unanimous choice in the history of the league) and four Super Bowl MVPs. 

 

He's got a .773 winning percentage, combined, for the regular season and playoffs. The Patriots could go 0-16 next year and he would still lead that category... by a mile. 

 

I know what you're going to say here - "team accomplishments." Right? But the guy was the winning QB on Super Bowl teams 15 years separated from each other. He is the constant. Brady made the Patriots who they are. I don't know if Belichick would have ever succeeded without him and I don't know if Brady would have ever succeeded elsewhere without BB. 

 

Again, if the object of the game is to win... not to pile up stats or Pro Bowls or anything... then I don't know who could possibly be the GOAT other than Brady.

 

 

 

 

The point of the team is to win the big one. The point of each player, is hopefully to win the SB. No one could do anything without the rest of the team doing their part, including the 3rd string CB. 

 

Without a WR who can catch to throw to, Manning nor Brady would win very many games in today's league. Without a RB who can run the ball, no one is winning that many games. 

 

So this argument will never yield a satisfactory answer to everyone. 

 

But it I think one thing we can all agree on was Peyton vs Brady was the greatest rivalry of all time. I think we can all be proud of that. 

[GoPats]

43 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

It's not hard to understand my point. We throw the fandom out the window and Manning has won league MVP 5 times. Brady has won it 2 times.

 

MVP stands for most valuable player in the league. It was not voted on by fans of one team over another.

So Brady got all 50 votes? 

 

OK, let me know when he gets three more league MVPs and then he can be in the conversation about who was the GOAT as far as none fans of one team is concerned.

 

You are apparently bias in your opinion because of your fandom geared at the Patriots.

 

There is nothing wrong with your opinion as everyone has a different opinion. But the opinion of non team fandom has said that Manning has won 3 more league MVPs than Brady.

 

 

Oh so Brady isn't even in the conversation? 

 

And I'm the one who's biased? 

 

Obviously I hit a nerve with this. Sorry if I upset you. But I know what MVP stands for and I know who votes on it. Thank you for (condescendingly) breaking it down for me though.

 

I'm pretty sure most of the NFL-watching world, at this point, agrees with me. Just about everyone's got Brady at the top of the mountain at this point, and he's not quite done yet. 

 

[GoPats]

42 minutes ago, NannyMcafee said:

 

The point of the team is to win the big one. The point of each player, is hopefully to win the SB. No one could do anything without the rest of the team doing their part, including the 3rd string CB. 

 

Without a WR who can catch to throw to, Manning nor Brady would win very many games in today's league. Without a RB who can run the ball, no one is winning that many games. 

 

So this argument will never yield a satisfactory answer to everyone. 

 

But it I think one thing we can all agree on was Peyton vs Brady was the greatest rivalry of all time. I think we can all be proud of that. 

 

Of course, I understand... I get that. It's not golf or tennis, or even a team sport like basketball where guys play both offense and defense. But if you look at it with an open mind, you don't win five titles through coaching alone, and you don't "luck" your way into that kind of resume. 

 

It was a really great rivalry, for sure. I don't know that we'll see that again. The only thing as a Boston sports fan, in my lifetime, that I can compare it to is Bird-Magic. 

 

 

[21isSuperman]

50 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

Oh so Brady isn't even in the conversation? 

 

And I'm the one who's biased? 

 

Obviously I hit a nerve with this. Sorry if I upset you. But I know what MVP stands for and I know who votes on it. Thank you for (condescendingly) breaking it down for me though.

 

I'm pretty sure most of the NFL-watching world, at this point, agrees with me. Just about everyone's got Brady at the top of the mountain at this point, and he's not quite done yet. 

 

Let's see if I can re-phrase his argument....

 

Brady did win the only unanimous MVP in NFL history.  I believe the argument is that Brady being a unanimous MVP doesn't mean that much.  It means he had one year where he was head and shoulders above the rest.  But Peyton has 5 MVPs, meaning he was the best player 5 times.  The score of the MVP voting doesn't matter.  Whether you get 60% of the vote of 100% of the vote, you still win MVP, the same way the final score of a game doesn't matter.  The winner is the winner, whether they win by 3, 7, or 40.  The point is to win, not by how much you win.  And again, when it comes to the foremost individual award, Peyton has won it the most in NFL history, and has won it at the highest rate in NFL history (by far).  Peyton may have won them by slim margins or by significant margins, but the point is he won 5 and Brady has won 2 so far.

 

The issue I have with the wins and rings arguments is you have so many exceptions.  Otto Graham has the highest win percentage in NFL history, at an insane 0.788, and 3 championships, but he isn't in the conversation for any GOAT titles.  Terry Bradshaw has 4 rings and a win percentage of 0.684, 8th all time.  But again, he's in no GOAT conversations.  You also have guys like Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson who have rings because their teams were great, but you have guys like Marino, who never won a ring despite being one of the most talented QBs to ever play.

 

As was stated earlier, you can't look at anything in a vacuum.  Just because Marino never won a ring, doesn't mean you ignore rings completely.  You have to look at the context of all the data and stats.  That context gives me the opinion that Peyton is the greatest QB in league history, but Brady is also a top-5 all time QB.

 

The saying I've heard many times - which you may not agree with - is Peyton was given the keys a Pinto and turned it into a Lexus.  Brady was given the keys to a Toyota and made it into a Lexus.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, GoPats said:

 

Of course, I understand... I get that. It's not golf or tennis, or even a team sport like basketball where guys play both offense and defense. But if you look at it with an open mind, you don't win five titles through coaching alone, and you don't "luck" your way into that kind of resume. 

 

It was a really great rivalry, for sure. I don't know that we'll see that again. The only thing as a Boston sports fan, in my lifetime, that I can compare it to is Bird-Magic. 

 

 

Brady didn't luck his way to five rings and that resume??  You are kidding right??  Brady was handed at least two rings by Seattle and Atlanta.

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, GoPats said:

 

Oh so Brady isn't even in the conversation? 

 

And I'm the one who's biased? 

 

Obviously I hit a nerve with this. Sorry if I upset you. But I know what MVP stands for and I know who votes on it. Thank you for (condescendingly) breaking it down for me though.

 

I'm pretty sure most of the NFL-watching world, at this point, agrees with me. Just about everyone's got Brady at the top of the mountain at this point, and he's not quite done yet. 

 

You didn't hit a nerve at all. Like I said, when Brady gets three more league MVPs then and only then will he tie Manning in the eyes of all those who vote without a team bias.

There are quarterbacks who get completely overlooked just because there are not too many people still alive that remember them playing. The record books don't lie. You look at a QB like Sammy Baugh. Some consider him the GOAT because he was more of a total football player than any QB in history. He not only played QB and held records in passing before the football was streamlined for passing he also played defense and still holds the record for interceptions in a season. Add the fact he lead the league in punting and still holds records in that category.  Manning nor Brady could never come close to records like that. So you see we all can have an opinion but till you look and see the total picture of football history it's all opinions.

The reality is football just didn't start when me or you started watching it and there are players in football history that throw doubt into naming any GOAT.

[GoPats]

1 hour ago, 21isSuperman said:

Let's see if I can re-phrase his argument....

 

Brady did win the only unanimous MVP in NFL history.  I believe the argument is that Brady being a unanimous MVP doesn't mean that much.  It means he had one year where he was head and shoulders above the rest.  But Peyton has 5 MVPs, meaning he was the best player 5 times.  The score of the MVP voting doesn't matter.  Whether you get 60% of the vote of 100% of the vote, you still win MVP, the same way the final score of a game doesn't matter.  The winner is the winner, whether they win by 3, 7, or 40.  The point is to win, not by how much you win.  And again, when it comes to the foremost individual award, Peyton has won it the most in NFL history, and has won it at the highest rate in NFL history (by far).  Peyton may have won them by slim margins or by significant margins, but the point is he won 5 and Brady has won 2 so far.

 

The issue I have with the wins and rings arguments is you have so many exceptions.  Otto Graham has the highest win percentage in NFL history, at an insane 0.788, and 3 championships, but he isn't in the conversation for any GOAT titles.  Terry Bradshaw has 4 rings and a win percentage of 0.684, 8th all time.  But again, he's in no GOAT conversations.  You also have guys like Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson who have rings because their teams were great, but you have guys like Marino, who never won a ring despite being one of the most talented QBs to ever play.

 

As was stated earlier, you can't look at anything in a vacuum.  Just because Marino never won a ring, doesn't mean you ignore rings completely.  You have to look at the context of all the data and stats.  That context gives me the opinion that Peyton is the greatest QB in league history, but Brady is also a top-5 all time QB.

 

The saying I've heard many times - which you may not agree with - is Peyton was given the keys a Pinto and turned it into a Lexus.  Brady was given the keys to a Toyota and made it into a Lexus.

 

I don't know that the 2001 Patriots were a Toyota... they were 0-2, and coming off a 5-11 season. I think there's a perception that Brady was handed some stellar team that already knew how to win. Not at all the case. They were coming off a bad season and were not looking good those first two weeks. 

 

But yes, I see your point, and I didn't mean to make a huge deal out of the 2010 MVP award. Just interesting that it was the only time that all 50 votes went to one guy. 

 

Otto Graham is a name that comes up a lot, but he played in an eight team league. I have a hard time putting guys from those eras into the same conversations as modern-era players. 

 

Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson aren't in the same class as Brady and Manning, obviously... that's why there's no standard formula or rule-of-thumb you can apply in this particular discussion. Bradshaw won plenty of games but I don't think anyone seriously puts him in the upper echelon of QBs, historically speaking. 

 

If you give Manning the GOAT title on the basis of winning 5 MVPs, I can only assume that prior to that, you had Brett Favre (3 MVPs, previous holder of that distinction) as the GOAT? 

[GoPats]

51 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Brady didn't luck his way to five rings and that resume??  You are kidding right??  Brady was handed at least two rings by Seattle and Atlanta.

 

The Patriots are probably a half dozen plays away from being 0-7 in Super Bowls, and a half dozen plays away from being 7-0. 

 

If you want to say that Seattle and Atlanta "choked" and leave it at that... Manning's only title with Indy was earned the same way. The Patriots had a huge lead in the AFCCG and "choked" it away to the Colts. 

 

 

[GoPats]

40 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

You didn't hit a nerve at all. Like I said, when Brady gets three more league MVPs then and only then will he tie Manning in the eyes of all those who vote without a team bias.

There are quarterbacks who get completely overlooked just because there are not too many people still alive that remember them playing. The record books don't lie. You look at a QB like Sammy Baugh. Some consider him the GOAT because he was more of a total football player than any QB in history. He not only played QB and held records in passing before the football was streamlined for passing he also played defense and still holds the record for interceptions in a season. Add the fact he lead the league in punting and still holds records in that category.  Manning nor Brady could never come close to records like that. So you see we all can have an opinion but till you look and see the total picture of football history it's all opinions.

The reality is football just didn't start when me or you started watching it and there are players in football history that throw doubt into naming any GOAT.

 

Well I'm not 90 years old, so no... I've never seen Sammy Baugh play. But like I said above, I have a hard time getting past the fact that the league had like 8 teams during most of those years. I also think the caliber of modern athletes is light years ahead of where those guys were back in the day. 

 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, GoPats said:

 

Well I'm not 90 years old, so no... I've never seen Sammy Baugh play. But like I said above, I have a hard time getting past the fact that the league had like 8 teams during most of those years. I also think the caliber of modern athletes is light years ahead of where those guys were back in the day. 

 

The QBs of today are protected and pampered a lot more than in the past. QBs were pounded on and hit just like a RB or WR and just the shear physical abuse the old players took and still put up record numbers is what in your opinion?

You may disregard eras all you care to but the players of old days were equal to their counterparts so the competition level was the same for them against each other just like today with the exception of the QBs being protected like they are glass these days.

[coltsfeva]

Brady never had to match wits with Bill Belicheck. And in the 5 years he won the SB, his defenses ranked: (points allowed)

2001- 6th

2003- 1st

2004- 2nd

2014 - 8th

2016 - 1st

Defense does win championships and I'll just say, despite that and Belicheck's great coaching advantage, he is one of the greatest of all time. But it would be difficult to put him above so many great that have less ( or no rings).

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, coltsfeva said:

Brady never had to match wits with Bill Belicheck. And in the 5 years he won the SB, his defenses ranked: (points allowed)

2001- 6th

2003- 1st

2004- 2nd

2014 - 8th

2016 - 1st

Defense does win championships and I'll just say, despite that and Belicheck's great coaching advantage, he is one of the greatest of all time. But it would be difficult to put him above so many great that have less ( or no rings).

 

 

Those were some great defenses, Top 8 all of them. The worse one was 2014 and that was the season they had the INT at the Goaline.

[2006Coltsbestever]

It is strange that Brady has 5 Rings and 2 MVP's, Peyton has 5 MVP's and 2 Rings. Just the opposite on each.

[TheRustonRifle#7]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It is strange that Brady has 5 Rings and 2 MVP's, Peyton has 5 MVP's and 2 Rings. Just the opposite on each.

True...it doesn't take from either as we had the privilege of watching two of the greatest QB's ever.

[21isSuperman]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

The QBs of today are protected and pampered a lot more than in the past. QBs were pounded on and hit just like a RB or WR and just the shear physical abuse the old players took and still put up record numbers is what in your opinion?

You may disregard eras all you care to but the players of old days were equal to their counterparts so the competition level was the same for them against each other just like today with the exception of the QBs being protected like they are glass these days.

During Sammy Baugh's era, there were 10 teams in the NFL, meaning Baugh was competing with 4 other teams in his conference (or divisions, as they were called then) to make it to the championship game.  In today's game, you have 32 teams.  You're competing with 3 others just to win your division and make the playoffs.  Plus, with so much demand to be better and so much competition, things are more competitive in today's game.  Players and coaches know much more about nutrition, exercise, rest, gameplanning, watching film, strategizing, etc.  This isn't to minimize Baugh's contributions, but when guys like Brady and Manning can dominate for so long against so much competition, it shows you just how good they are.  Plus, there are many people who put Montana in the GOAT conversation, even though he played several decades ago.  I don't think eras are restricting who is put in the GOAT conversation.

[Fluke_33]

3 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

During Sammy Baugh's era, there were 10 teams in the NFL, meaning Baugh was competing with 4 other teams in his conference (or divisions, as they were called then) to make it to the championship game.  In today's game, you have 32 teams.  You're competing with 3 others just to win your division and make the playoffs.  Plus, with so much demand to be better and so much competition, things are more competitive in today's game.  Players and coaches know much more about nutrition, exercise, rest, gameplanning, watching film, strategizing, etc.  This isn't to minimize Baugh's contributions, but when guys like Brady and Manning can dominate for so long against so much competition, it shows you just how good they are.  Plus, there are many people who put Montana in the GOAT conversation, even though he played several decades ago.  I don't think eras are restricting who is put in the GOAT conversation.

Can you imagine if we took the best players from all 32 teams today and created a 10 team league then one of those players led the league in passing, interceptions, and punting?

[footballhero1]

On 7/15/2017 at 0:42 PM, 21isSuperman said:

I'm curious to see what opposing fans, particularly Pats/Brady fans, have to say about this.  Not looking for any sort of flame war or anything.  Just looking for honest opinions and discussion.  Maybe there's something in my analysis that I missed?

 

@Yehoodi @GoPats @Flying Elvis

 

It's a hard to pull apart and dissect them because it usually comes down to this. 

 

Argument's for Brady: He's better because he wins more and turns up clutch more. 

Arguments against that: Well he's had better defenses and a better HC. 

 

Arguments for Manning: He's better because his stats are better on average. 

Arguments against that: Well he's had one of the best WR casts over a career of any QB ever. 

 

And that's the problem. Like if you take the OP's argument for Manning, essentially it comes down to stats and bulk stats at that. Well Manning's number 1 receivers over his career have been Harrison, Wayne, and Thomas respectively. Brady played two years with Moss. Outside of that has he ever had a number 1 receiver as good as either of those 3 (and keep in mind Manning never played year without one of those 3). I guess Gronk if you want to count him, but he gets injured nearly every year. Then for a good while he's had number 2's like Wayne (when Harrison was still there), Decker, and Sanders. You can go through Brady's whole career, he'd kill if guys at that level were his number 2 option. 

 

Then even when you look at stats, those are mostly bulk stats where the quality of receivers does have more of an overall impact. When you head over to efficiency stats. Brady's ahead of him passer rating. And to be honest the only QB's ahead of him are Rodgers and Wilson (both QB's who debuted as starters in the last decade under more favorable rules). Then not for nothing he kills Peyton in interception percentage. Like I think if Brady had his average interception rate for the rest of his career it would take him another 9 or 10 years of play to eclipse Peyton's number of interceptions for a career (and not for nothing, but if Brady did do that, he'd put every all time passing stats out of reach forever). 

 

That's something you do have to consider. When people say Manning had worse teams, they mean he had worse defenses, he almost universally had better offenses, specifically in the passing game, which do play role in where they stand in statistics vs one another. And the fact that Brady's passing stats are still stellar and within striking distance of Manning's despite some of the casts he's had, is a big plus for him. 

 

Then you go to the MVP argument. Well here's the thing, two of Brady's MVP's he was the clear cut best player in the league and it wasn't close at all. 2007 was one of the best QB years of all time. 2010 he was like the first unanimous MVP ever and broke some record for most consecutive passes without an interception. With Manning you can say that about 2004 and 2013. 2003 he was a co MVP with another QB, so you could say right there he wasn't the consensus best person at his position that year. 2009 alot of people feel like Brees got screwed. And 2008 is kind the reason people used to make jokes that Manning got the MVP by default if someone didn't stand out that year. Not to diminish them, it's just not all awards are equal and between them both, they both have two that came from exceptional seasons and then Manning had 3 more that came from very good seasons where nobody stood out or their was a tie. 

 

To me the differences in overall stats isn't really night and day when you consider the casts and Brady's better efficiency numbers. Then when you talk about wins and Super Bowls and what not, (basically the concessions Brady's teams might have made on WR talent for better defenses) you start to see where the bigger gap is. Brady's going to put the all time win record out of reach for generations and he'll do it with an unbelievably high win percentage, his playoff and Super Bowl records will likely never be broken either. 

 

The best way to describe it is. Brady's top 4 in bulk stats (Manning is generally number 1 here) he'll have a shot to get within striking distance of the one spot. He's top 3 of all time in efficiency stats (the only players better than him debuted almost a decade after him). When it comes to wins and playoff/Super Bowl success, he's way past everybody else. He has the best combination of all the accolades you could want.

 

[footballhero1]

 

 

10 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Brady didn't luck his way to five rings and that resume??  You are kidding right??  Brady was handed at least two rings by Seattle and Atlanta.

The problem is if you play that game then you have to actually look at the games and what happened before one or two key moments. If Seattle won that game, the narrative would be that the Patriots lost because Kearse had a freakshow catch that put Seattle in position to score. That was after Brady had one of the best 4th quarters in Super Bowl history to comeback from a 10 point deficit (at the time tying the record). So you would almost have to say Seattle got gift wrapped a SB. And considering the Patriots defense gave up a 30 second drive for a TD to end the first half, you'd almost have to say the Patriots lost because their defense crapped the bed to end both halfs of the game. I could also argue that literally every stat about the situation said passing at the 1 yard line was a better gamble than running Lynch in short yardage.

 

If you go to the Atlanta game, Brady again played flawlessly at the end of the game to engineer and even bigger comeback. Is it Brady's fault Matt Ryan took a stupid sack and didn't throw the ball away? Is it Brady's fault the Falcons defense got tired out because Brady had 90 snaps? Is it Brady's fault the Falcons offense tired out and didn't score a single point while the Patriots proceeded to but up 31 unanswered points? 

 

Then you can go to the two he lost against the Giants and say he basically lost one off the helmet catch or Samuels dropping an interception, take your pick, and that he shouldn't have really lost that game. And the other one came down to Welker dropping a pass that hit him in the hands. Both of those he left the field late in the game with a lead. It came down to his defense not making a stop.

 

Just saying if you have that argument, there's other things you can factor in there. 

[crazycolt1]

8 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

During Sammy Baugh's era, there were 10 teams in the NFL, meaning Baugh was competing with 4 other teams in his conference (or divisions, as they were called then) to make it to the championship game.  In today's game, you have 32 teams.  You're competing with 3 others just to win your division and make the playoffs.  Plus, with so much demand to be better and so much competition, things are more competitive in today's game.  Players and coaches know much more about nutrition, exercise, rest, gameplanning, watching film, strategizing, etc.  This isn't to minimize Baugh's contributions, but when guys like Brady and Manning can dominate for so long against so much competition, it shows you just how good they are.  Plus, there are many people who put Montana in the GOAT conversation, even though he played several decades ago.  I don't think eras are restricting who is put in the GOAT conversation.

On the other side of the coin players of the old eras had a lot less games to set records and that makes it even more impressive when some records are still being held. Plus the ball was not streamlined so the passing and punting records are even still more impressive.

No one is doubting Manning and Brady being dominate for so long but the rule changes have kept them on the field for much longer. If either one of them took the pounding of the older era QBs did their careers would not be as long.

You say eras don't restrict but yet very few even consider or ever bring up players of different eras because they didn't play in a time they can remember.

Bart Starr won 5 championships so why isn't his name mentioned with Brady and 5 championships?

So yes, eras are restricted when it comes to getting credit.

[GoPats]

18 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

The QBs of today are protected and pampered a lot more than in the past. QBs were pounded on and hit just like a RB or WR and just the shear physical abuse the old players took and still put up record numbers is what in your opinion?

You may disregard eras all you care to but the players of old days were equal to their counterparts so the competition level was the same for them against each other just like today with the exception of the QBs being protected like they are glass these days.

 

I had to look this up... Baugh still holds a record for number of seasons leading the league in passing (6th, tied with Steve Young) and number of seasons where he lead the league in interception percentage (5). While I am not discrediting "Slingin" Sammy, and appreciate his historic contributions to the game, I have not seen him play because he retired 20 years before I was born. The records he holds speak more to his level against his contemporaries than they do about his place in league history. 

 

21isSuperman provided a great response and I couldn't have said it better: 

 

16 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

During Sammy Baugh's era, there were 10 teams in the NFL, meaning Baugh was competing with 4 other teams in his conference (or divisions, as they were called then) to make it to the championship game.  In today's game, you have 32 teams.  You're competing with 3 others just to win your division and make the playoffs.  Plus, with so much demand to be better and so much competition, things are more competitive in today's game.  Players and coaches know much more about nutrition, exercise, rest, gameplanning, watching film, strategizing, etc.  This isn't to minimize Baugh's contributions, but when guys like Brady and Manning can dominate for so long against so much competition, it shows you just how good they are.  Plus, there are many people who put Montana in the GOAT conversation, even though he played several decades ago.  I don't think eras are restricting who is put in the GOAT conversation.

 

To frame it another way... think of the 4-minute mile. It wasn't until 1954 that someone finally broke the barrier on that. Today, the record is 17 seconds faster than it was then.

 

Point is, over time, athletes improve through training, knowledge, nutrition, etc-etc. You don't even have to go back that far (the 1970s) to get to a time when a lot of NFL players had offseason jobs and did not train 24/7/365. They used to use training camp to "get in shape." 

 

There is obviously a place for the all-time greats from different eras. And yes, I realize that the rules of the game have made it easier on modern QBs... forget about their protection, even just the rules surrounding pass interference are a huge factor. But there was a game held between the all-star players of 1942 and the Patriots' 2016 team, I would take the modern-era team 100 times out of 100. 

 

 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, GoPats said:

 

I had to look this up... Baugh still holds a record for number of seasons leading the league in passing (6th, tied with Steve Young) and number of seasons where he lead the league in interception percentage (5). While I am not discrediting "Slingin" Sammy, and appreciate his historic contributions to the game, I have not seen him play because he retired 20 years before I was born. The records he holds speak more to his level against his contemporaries than they do about his place in league history. 

 

21isSuperman provided a great response and I couldn't have said it better: 

 

 

To frame it another way... think of the 4-minute mile. It wasn't until 1954 that someone finally broke the barrier on that. Today, the record is 17 seconds faster than it was then.

 

Point is, over time, athletes improve through training, knowledge, nutrition, etc-etc. You don't even have to go back that far (the 1970s) to get to a time when a lot of NFL players had offseason jobs and did not train 24/7/365. They used to use training camp to "get in shape." 

 

There is obviously a place for the all-time greats from different eras. And yes, I realize that the rules of the game have made it easier on modern QBs... forget about their protection, even just the rules surrounding pass interference are a huge factor. But there was a game held between the all-star players of 1942 and the Patriots' 2016 team, I would take the modern-era team 100 times out of 100. 

 

 

Well no kidding. All these things being said still does not take away what was done in different eras of football.

Why is Bart Starr not brought up when you mention Brady's five championships? He is much closer to the 'modern' era QB and won the first two so called super bowls when before they were just called championships. Just because of all the advances in preparation for football does not mean the past eras didn't happen and they can be discarded because your fandom does not go back in those eras.

I just used Sammy Bough to make a point but there are others who are overlooked because fans of today have an attitude football didn't start till they become fans.

The GOAT in any team sport is purely opinions and speculations. Where would any QB be if not for the players on his team to make him look good? I am not saying Brady is not a top flight QB and is in the top tier of QBs in history but he would be nothing without the team around him just like Manning was and any other QB on any list.

Was Brady or Manning any better than Marino? Montana? Young? Baugh? Elway? Staubach? Starr? Rogers? Aikman? Graham? All these have been discussions about the GOAT and it is all opinion on who you pick. Take your choice but it don't mean it's 100% correct because it's your opinion.

[21isSuperman]

9 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

On the other side of the coin players of the old eras had a lot less games to set records and that makes it even more impressive when some records are still being held. Plus the ball was not streamlined so the passing and punting records are even still more impressive.

No one is doubting Manning and Brady being dominate for so long but the rule changes have kept them on the field for much longer. If either one of them took the pounding of the older era QBs did their careers would not be as long.

You say eras don't restrict but yet very few even consider or ever bring up players of different eras because they didn't play in a time they can remember.

Bart Starr won 5 championships so why isn't his name mentioned with Brady and 5 championships?

So yes, eras are restricted when it comes to getting credit.

I have to disagree with you.  Greatest WR of all time is almost universally Jerry Rice, who played from '85 to '05.  Greatest RBs of all time usually include names like Jim Brown (played in the '50s and '60s) and Barry Sanders (played in the '90s).  Greatest LBs of all time usually include names like Butkus, Nitschke, Hamm, Lawrence Taylor, and Lambert.  Greatest DBs of all time usually include names like Night Train Lane, and Deion Sanders.

 

The thing is even people who have been watching the NFL for longer than I've been alive, and people who closely study NFL history, recognize that Brady and Manning belong in the discussion for greatest ever.  I don't think era restricts players.

 

11 hours ago, footballhero1 said:

Removed for brevity

 

The best way to describe it is. Brady's top 4 in bulk stats (Manning is generally number 1 here) he'll have a shot to get within striking distance of the one spot. He's top 3 of all time in efficiency stats (the only players better than him debuted almost a decade after him). When it comes to wins and playoff/Super Bowl success, he's way past everybody else. He has the best combination of all the accolades you could want.

 

I agree that it's difficult to really analyze.  However, as I said before, transcendental talents like Brady and Manning can make the players around them better.  In an alternative reality, I would have liked to see the Colts focus more of their assets on the defensive side of the ball and let Manning make those around him better.  However, that's getting into untestable hypotheticals.

 

I think when it comes to individual stats and not team accomplishments, Peyton did the good things better whereas Brady did the bad things less.  That is, Peyton threw for more yards and touchdowns, but Brady threw less picks.

 

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

 All these have been discussions about the GOAT and it is all opinion on who you pick. Take your choice but it don't mean it's 100% correct because it's your opinion.

I think everyone's done a good job of acknowledging that so far.  Even when I tried to present objective facts to support my subjective opinion, @GoPats and others were able to present their own objective facts to support their subjective opinions.  The point is just to have a fun discussion.

[21isSuperman]

1 hour ago, GoPats said:

 

I had to look this up... Baugh still holds a record for number of seasons leading the league in passing (6th, tied with Steve Young) and number of seasons where he lead the league in interception percentage (5). While I am not discrediting "Slingin" Sammy, and appreciate his historic contributions to the game, I have not seen him play because he retired 20 years before I was born. The records he holds speak more to his level against his contemporaries than they do about his place in league history.

Just a fun side note, I think Sammy Baugh is one of Belichick's favourite players ever.  He presented Sammy Baugh in the 2010 Greatest of All Time show the NFL Network put on.  I think he called Baugh a combination of Ed Reed, Brian Moorman, and Tom Brady?

[GoPats]

1 hour ago, 21isSuperman said:

Just a fun side note, I think Sammy Baugh is one of Belichick's favourite players ever.  He presented Sammy Baugh in the 2010 Greatest of All Time show the NFL Network put on.  I think he called Baugh a combination of Ed Reed, Brian Moorman, and Tom Brady?

 

I remember that, and BB is quite the historian... I wish I could have seen more of those guys. You can search for highlights and whatnot but I think something gets lost in that process. 

 

[GoPats]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

Well no kidding. All these things being said still does not take away what was done in different eras of football.

Why is Bart Starr not brought up when you mention Brady's five championships? He is much closer to the 'modern' era QB and won the first two so called super bowls when before they were just called championships. Just because of all the advances in preparation for football does not mean the past eras didn't happen and they can be discarded because your fandom does not go back in those eras.

I just used Sammy Bough to make a point but there are others who are overlooked because fans of today have an attitude football didn't start till they become fans.

The GOAT in any team sport is purely opinions and speculations. Where would any QB be if not for the players on his team to make him look good? I am not saying Brady is not a top flight QB and is in the top tier of QBs in history but he would be nothing without the team around him just like Manning was and any other QB on any list.

Was Brady or Manning any better than Marino? Montana? Young? Baugh? Elway? Staubach? Starr? Rogers? Aikman? Graham? All these have been discussions about the GOAT and it is all opinion on who you pick. Take your choice but it don't mean it's 100% correct because it's your opinion.

 

I don't bring up Bart Starr for a couple of reasons.

 

1. I wasn't around for the prime of his career. 

2. Anything pre-merger should be taken with a grain of salt. 

 

I did acknowledge, clearly, that this is an opinion-based thing, and of course no one's opinion translates to being 100% correct... never said it did. 

[GoPats]

 

It's the offseason so there's no shortage of this stuff out there, but...

 

Interestingly, ESPN just published something on this today. They had a panel of 10 former coaches and executives (including Tony Dungy) and Brady was the "overwhelming" choice for the top spot among "modern era" QBs (defined as 1978 or later).

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20096209/nfl-coaches-execs-rank-best-quarterbacks-modern-era-2017

 

 

[21isSuperman]

1 hour ago, GoPats said:

 

It's the offseason so there's no shortage of this stuff out there, but...

 

Interestingly, ESPN just published something on this today. They had a panel of 10 former coaches and executives (including Tony Dungy) and Brady was the "overwhelming" choice for the top spot among "modern era" QBs (defined as 1978 or later).

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20096209/nfl-coaches-execs-rank-best-quarterbacks-modern-era-2017

 

Just to keep the discussion going, I have a few problems with the reasoning of some voters.  Brady is #1 because he's won so many games and Super Bowls, but those are team accomplishments, as we've discussed.  Not only that, but Wade Phillips says the Pats haven't always had a great defense.  That's true, but he's had more talent on that side of the ball, including Belichick > Dungy, than Manning.

 

Another piece that we can discuss is how teams did in their absence.  Brady misses a year with a knee injury and the Pats still win double-digits with Cassel.  Brady misses 4 games with a suspension and the Pats go 3-1.  Manning misses a year due to neck injuries and the Colts go from a championship contender to the worst team in the league.  Thoughts?