Why Brady is NOT the GOAT

[aaron11]

1 minute ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

He hasn't played longer. Peyton Manning was in the NFL for 18 seasons and missed one full season. Tom Brady has been in the NFL for 19 seasons but didn't play his rookie year and missed a full season with a knee injury. So that puts both at 17 seasons. Manning has 1,400 more passing yds and 22 more TD's. That equates to about 5 yds more passing per game and .08 more TD's per game.  Manning also threw 80 MORE interceptions than Brady has thrown or .29 more per game.  The stats are nearly identical for the 2 through 17 seasons.

 

yes he hasnt passed in every stat yet.  he will do that next year though

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

1 minute ago, aaron11 said:

 

yes he hasnt passed in every stat yet.  he will do that next year though

 

My point is that the difference is stats is so small that it doesn't really matter. They are virtually equals in the stats. There will be people who say that when Tom Brady does pass Manning in the stats that he "played longer" when if you look at both after 17 seasons on the field that stats are almost identical. Would you really be more impressed by a guy who threw for 305 yds over a guy who threw for 300? 

[Superman]

13 hours ago, LockeDown said:

He never is a playmaker, never has to.  Never gets out of the pocket, never has to.

 

Never is a strong word. Too strong, in this case. Brady is a great playmaking QB. It's usually in the pocket, but there are a few times he's made big plays out of the pocket.

 

 

There are lots of plays like this.

 

[18to87]

5 hours ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

He hasn't played longer. Peyton Manning was in the NFL for 18 seasons and missed one full season. Tom Brady has been in the NFL for 19 seasons but didn't play his rookie year and missed a full season with a knee injury. So that puts both at 17 seasons. Manning has 1,400 more passing yds and 22 more TD's. That equates to about 5 yds more passing per game and .08 more TD's per game.  Manning also threw 80 MORE interceptions than Brady has thrown or .29 more per game.  The stats are nearly identical for the 2 through 17 seasons.

 

It's also a copy cat league and Manning laid the foundation for the pass-happy league we see now following his 2004 season - which had he not spend almost two full games of that season on the bench, would have been close to 60 TD's. It's no coincidence that BB and Sean Payton evolved their schemes after 2004. 

[LockeDown]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Never is a strong word. Too strong, in this case. Brady is a great playmaking QB. It's usually in the pocket, but there are a few times he's made big plays out of the pocket.

 

 

There are lots of plays like this.

 

Those are exceptions and still not great in comparison to the best athletic QBs in the league.

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, 18to87 said:

 

It's also a copy cat league and Manning laid the foundation for the pass-happy league we see now following his 2004 season - which had he not spend almost two full games of that season on the bench, would have been close to 60 TD's. It's no coincidence that BB and Sean Payton evolved their schemes after 2004. 

 

See, this convenient narrative is well overstated, to the point of being completely wrong at times.

 

For instance, Manning attempted 69 fewer passes in 2004 than he did in 2003. Part of this had to do with him leaving games early, but that adjustment probably just equalizes the attempts. Point being, the Colts didn't suddenly become pass happy in 2004 (to whatever extent one would consider them being pass happy). Manning attempted more passes in 2001 and 2002, also. As a matter of fact the only full season in which Manning attempted fewer passes than 2004 was 2005. 

 

And then compare Manning's attempts to Brady's in 2002 and 2003, and one can see that the Patriots were already willing to go pass heavy at times, early in Brady's career. Charlie Weis would adjust their offense to whatever the circumstances called for, just like the Patriots do now. Sometimes that was a conservative, run-first offense, other times that included throwing the ball 45+ times. Brady attempted 40+ passes six times in 2002, 50+ three times. They didn't just start throwing the ball around after 2004. 

[Superman]

52 minutes ago, LockeDown said:

Those are exceptions and still not great in comparison to the best athletic QBs in the league.

 

The word "never" doesn't allow for exceptions.

 

And the 'athletic' plays aren't really my focus. If you're saying Brady isn't a playmaker, you're just wrong, plain and simple. 

 

If you're saying he doesn't have to be a playmaker, especially not as often as the QBs to whom he is mostly compared, then we agree. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

Tom Brady can't be the goat.

 

He avoids coffee, sugar, fruits, and dairy.

 

A real goat would eat all that stuff, the container they came in, and the left shoe of the grocery store clerk that sold it to him.

 

[18to87]

13 hours ago, Superman said:

 

See, this convenient narrative is well overstated, to the point of being completely wrong at times.

 

For instance, Manning attempted 69 fewer passes in 2004 than he did in 2003. Part of this had to do with him leaving games early, but that adjustment probably just equalizes the attempts. Point being, the Colts didn't suddenly become pass happy in 2004 (to whatever extent one would consider them being pass happy). Manning attempted more passes in 2001 and 2002, also. As a matter of fact the only full season in which Manning attempted fewer passes than 2004 was 2005. 

 

And then compare Manning's attempts to Brady's in 2002 and 2003, and one can see that the Patriots were already willing to go pass heavy at times, early in Brady's career. Charlie Weis would adjust their offense to whatever the circumstances called for, just like the Patriots do now. Sometimes that was a conservative, run-first offense, other times that included throwing the ball 45+ times. Brady attempted 40+ passes six times in 2002, 50+ three times. They didn't just start throwing the ball around after 2004. 

 

I was more referring to the multiple threat "pick your poison" offense which was at its best when Stokley was healthy and playing well and Manning was using Clark as a chess piece. Those couple of seasons set the wheels in motion towards the pass-happy NFL we see today IMO. You can argue that the Patriots took it to another level with Welker, Gronk and Hernandez. Then, Manning got one back with Julius Thomas as his new chess piece before the Broncos got sick of him not run blocking which was perhaps the death knell of PM's days as an elite QB. Anyway, I digress...       

[teganslaw]

18 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

Tom Brady can't be the goat.

 

He avoids coffee, sugar, fruits, and dairy.

 

A real goat would eat all that stuff, the container they came in, and the left shoe of the grocery store clerk that sold it to him.

 

This proves that Brady isn't the G.O.A.T. These are pictures of real goats, case closed. 

[GoPats]

 

What, exactly, are you guys debating here? What comprises "the best," or the GOAT? 

 

Is it "most talented" QB? If so, then Brady is definitively not that guy. He's made the most of a God-given athletic skill set but he's not the fastest guy out there for sure... doesn't have the best arm... his list of physical limitations is long. If you were judging strictly by talent, then IMO guys like Aaron Rodgers and John Elway top out this list. Brady is accurate, and fundamentally sound, and he's worked very hard at that. But it's not like he was destined for this from a very early age. 

 

Maybe it's the most "accomplished" QB? Or to put it another way, most decorated? I don't know how anyone could argue that any other QB's resume matches up to Brady's at this point. He has the volume stats, individual awards, team achievements... basically as close to perfect as a career could get. He's done it all. 

 

As others have pointed out, coaching is certainly a factor. But with Brady and Belichick, we don't know how much each has contributed to the other's success. We'll probably never know for sure, because Brady is not likely to ever play for another coach, and Belichick will probably  not coach long enough to have a meaningful sample size with any other QB running his offense. Personally I think they've had a perfectly symbiotic relationship where each has basically "made" the other's career. Coaching is important, but we always hear the word "execution" in football. Brady has executed well, to near perfection at times, and it would be really difficult to say that any other QB (including someone like Manning) could have done the same in the same situations. 

 

I hate to see rival fans go out of their way to discredit Brady, but I get it. It's more comfortable to attribute his success to Belichick, or to the system he plays in, or to the "cheating scandals" or whatever you want to attribute it to. But as a football fan (not just a fan of the Patriots), I find that to be disingenuous and sort of an agenda-serving point-of-view. I respect any diverging opinions on the topic, and it's a difficult topic to discuss, but to suggest that Brady was simply in the right place at the right time is intellectually dishonest. You aren't the QB of six Super Bowl winning teams -- over the course of nearly two decades, mind you -- if you're simply along for the ride. Brady and Belichick are the constants, and unless things change drastically, we'll never really know who deserves the credit or who really drove the bus. 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

19 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

What, exactly, are you guys debating here? What comprises "the best," or the GOAT? 

 

Is it "most talented" QB? If so, then Brady is definitively not that guy. He's made the most of a God-given athletic skill set but he's not the fastest guy out there for sure... doesn't have the best arm... his list of physical limitations is long. If you were judging strictly by talent, then IMO guys like Aaron Rodgers and John Elway top out this list. Brady is accurate, and fundamentally sound, and he's worked very hard at that. But it's not like he was destined for this from a very early age. 

 

Maybe it's the most "accomplished" QB? Or to put it another way, most decorated? I don't know how anyone could argue that any other QB's resume matches up to Brady's at this point. He has the volume stats, individual awards, team achievements... basically as close to perfect as a career could get. He's done it all. 

 

As others have pointed out, coaching is certainly a factor. But with Brady and Belichick, we don't know how much each has contributed to the other's success. We'll probably never know for sure, because Brady is not likely to ever play for another coach, and Belichick will probably  not coach long enough to have a meaningful sample size with any other QB running his offense. Personally I think they've had a perfectly symbiotic relationship where each has basically "made" the other's career. Coaching is important, but we always hear the word "execution" in football. Brady has executed well, to near perfection at times, and it would be really difficult to say that any other QB (including someone like Manning) could have done the same in the same situations. 

 

I hate to see rival fans go out of their way to discredit Brady, but I get it. It's more comfortable to attribute his success to Belichick, or to the system he plays in, or to the "cheating scandals" or whatever you want to attribute it to. But as a football fan (not just a fan of the Patriots), I find that to be disingenuous and sort of an agenda-serving point-of-view. I respect any diverging opinions on the topic, and it's a difficult topic to discuss, but to suggest that Brady was simply in the right place at the right time is intellectually dishonest. You aren't the QB of six Super Bowl winning teams -- over the course of nearly two decades, mind you -- if you're simply along for the ride. Brady and Belichick are the constants, and unless things change drastically, we'll never really know who deserves the credit or who really drove the bus. 

 

 

-Most Accomplished = Brady, 6 SB wins.

 

-Most Clutch = Montana, 4-0 in SB's and no INT's.

 

-Smartest/highest IQ/Coach on the field = Peyton

 

-Most overall Talent = Elway because he could run like a RB as well besides having a tremendous arm.

 

 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, GoPats said:

 

What, exactly, are you guys debating here? What comprises "the best," or the GOAT? 

 

Is it "most talented" QB? If so, then Brady is definitively not that guy. He's made the most of a God-given athletic skill set but he's not the fastest guy out there for sure... doesn't have the best arm... his list of physical limitations is long. If you were judging strictly by talent, then IMO guys like Aaron Rodgers and John Elway top out this list. Brady is accurate, and fundamentally sound, and he's worked very hard at that. But it's not like he was destined for this from a very early age. 

 

Maybe it's the most "accomplished" QB? Or to put it another way, most decorated? I don't know how anyone could argue that any other QB's resume matches up to Brady's at this point. He has the volume stats, individual awards, team achievements... basically as close to perfect as a career could get. He's done it all. 

 

As others have pointed out, coaching is certainly a factor. But with Brady and Belichick, we don't know how much each has contributed to the other's success. We'll probably never know for sure, because Brady is not likely to ever play for another coach, and Belichick will probably  not coach long enough to have a meaningful sample size with any other QB running his offense. Personally I think they've had a perfectly symbiotic relationship where each has basically "made" the other's career. Coaching is important, but we always hear the word "execution" in football. Brady has executed well, to near perfection at times, and it would be really difficult to say that any other QB (including someone like Manning) could have done the same in the same situations. 

 

I hate to see rival fans go out of their way to discredit Brady, but I get it. It's more comfortable to attribute his success to Belichick, or to the system he plays in, or to the "cheating scandals" or whatever you want to attribute it to. But as a football fan (not just a fan of the Patriots), I find that to be disingenuous and sort of an agenda-serving point-of-view. I respect any diverging opinions on the topic, and it's a difficult topic to discuss, but to suggest that Brady was simply in the right place at the right time is intellectually dishonest. You aren't the QB of six Super Bowl winning teams -- over the course of nearly two decades, mind you -- if you're simply along for the ride. Brady and Belichick are the constants, and unless things change drastically, we'll never really know who deserves the credit or who really drove the bus. 

 

Good post.

 

Speaking for myself, to the bolded, my comments about Brady benefiting from Belichick are not meant to discredit Brady. His resume stands on its own and speaks for itself.

 

My comments are a response to the general go-to statements that 'Brady just wins,' etc. I've always taken issue with that argument, because as we all know, the QB is just one piece of the puzzle. That's why I posted stats that show just how much of an outlier the Patriots' results have been over the last 17 years. The fact that the Patriots can and do win games even when the QB has an average performance -- and do so at a rate that no other team in history has done -- illustrates why it's a fallacy to say 'Brady just wins.' 

 

It doesn't take away from Brady, in my mind. He can lay claim to whatever title anyone wants to place on him, legitimately: career accomplishments, individual stats, performance in big moments, playoff comebacks, division dominance, longevity, production in his 40s... whatever it is, however we judge greatness for NFL QBs, he's at or near the top of every discussion.

 

But, he has an advantage over every other QB in NFL history: he's spent two decades being coached by Belichick, and he's never had to face Belichick. I posted earlier about the HOF QBs that Belichick's defense has beat in the SB alone, plus many others in the playoffs. His defenses are like the 90s Bulls -- they've left a graveyard of would-be champions in their wake. Brady has never had to face the biggest obstacle that every other QB of the last 35 years has had to deal with.

 

(And then there's just plain luck, which no one should hold against Brady, but it's been a factor. There's the Tuck Rule, there's stuff like Dee Ford's penalty, etc. And then in the three OT playoff games since 2001, the Patriots have won every coin toss, and the opposing offense never touched the ball.)

 

It's a very nuanced discussion. I have no problem with anyone calling Brady the GOAT, but it bugs me when people say 'he's the goat, six rings, he just wins,' because that's not how it works. And that's always bugged me. But you know that. We've been doing this a long time now.

[WoolMagnet]

Retire

[JimJaime]

On 2/12/2019 at 3:27 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

-Most Accomplished = Brady, 6 SB wins.

 

-Most Clutch = Montana, 4-0 in SB's and no INT's.

 

-Smartest/highest IQ/Coach on the field = Peyton

 

-Most overall Talent = Elway because he could run like a RB as well besides having a tremendous arm.

 

 

Most clutch? Brady in 9 SB Appearances has either been in the lead or gotten the lead for his team with 3 minutes or less to play in 8 of them. So if the D did their job the Pats be 8-1 in SB Appearances.  My point is he was clutch, his D was not. (Shrug)

 

 mind you we all have our GOATs and that’s fine just enjoy the sport and for right now enjoy the finally of the Brady years. 

[JimJaime]

22 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Good post.

 

Speaking for myself, to the bolded, my comments about Brady benefiting from Belichick are not meant to discredit Brady. His resume stands on its own and speaks for itself.

 

My comments are a response to the general go-to statements that 'Brady just wins,' etc. I've always taken issue with that argument, because as we all know, the QB is just one piece of the puzzle. That's why I posted stats that show just how much of an outlier the Patriots' results have been over the last 17 years. The fact that the Patriots can and do win games even when the QB has an average performance -- and do so at a rate that no other team in history has done -- illustrates why it's a fallacy to say 'Brady just wins.' 

 

It doesn't take away from Brady, in my mind. He can lay claim to whatever title anyone wants to place on him, legitimately: career accomplishments, individual stats, performance in big moments, playoff comebacks, division dominance, longevity, production in his 40s... whatever it is, however we judge greatness for NFL QBs, he's at or near the top of every discussion.

 

But, he has an advantage over every other QB in NFL history: he's spent two decades being coached by Belichick, and he's never had to face Belichick. I posted earlier about the HOF QBs that Belichick's defense has beat in the SB alone, plus many others in the playoffs. His defenses are like the 90s Bulls -- they've left a graveyard of would-be champions in their wake. Brady has never had to face the biggest obstacle that every other QB of the last 35 years has had to deal with.

 

(And then there's just plain luck, which no one should hold against Brady, but it's been a factor. There's the Tuck Rule, there's stuff like Dee Ford's penalty, etc. And then in the three OT playoff games since 2001, the Patriots have won every coin toss, and the opposing offense never touched the ball.)

 

It's a very nuanced discussion. I have no problem with anyone calling Brady the GOAT, but it bugs me when people say 'he's the goat, six rings, he just wins,' because that's not how it works. And that's always bugged me. But you know that. We've been doing this a long time now.

 Very well written comment!  Whenever I say Brady “just wins” I mean more like he almost always puts his team in a position to win at the end of the game.  There are very few QBs that scare D Coordinators like Brady having the ball with 2 minutes to go and the game on the line.  For me he just seems be a clutch type player.. sort of like how I felt Big Pappi would always come up with that big hit when the Red Sox needed it..

[2006Coltsbestever]

43 minutes ago, JimJaime said:

Most clutch? Brady in 9 SB Appearances has either been in the lead or gotten the lead for his team with 3 minutes or less to play in 8 of them. So if the D did their job the Pats be 8-1 in SB Appearances.  My point is he was clutch, his D was not. (Shrug)

 

 mind you we all have our GOATs and that’s fine just enjoy the sport and for right now enjoy the finally of the Brady years. 

LOL, I never said Brady wasn't clutch, he is super clutch but IMO Montana being 4-0 in SB's with no INT's is the definition of clutch. He also won a SB with a TD pass late in a game. I already listed Brady as the most accomplished winner which is true.

[wizwor]

On 2/11/2019 at 8:41 AM, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

My point is that the difference is stats is so small that it doesn't really matter. They are virtually equals in the stats. There will be people who say that when Tom Brady does pass Manning in the stats that he "played longer" when if you look at both after 17 seasons on the field that stats are almost identical. Would you really be more impressed by a guy who threw for 305 yds over a guy who threw for 300? 

 

Well there is the RING stat.  Except for championships, they have similar stats.  Brady is the GOAT, let's move on.

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

11 hours ago, wizwor said:

 

Well there is the RING stat.  Except for championships, they have similar stats.  Brady is the GOAT, let's move on.

 

That's what I've said in my previous posts. I've said several times that I think they are pretty much equals in accomplishments on the field and that the reason I say Brady is the GOAT is because he has helped his team win 6 championships to Manning's 2.

[DaveA1102]

This is the first I have dove into this thread and, to echo @Mel Kiper's Hair's comments, kudos to all involved for a healthy and well-reasoned debate on a topic which will never be satisfactorily answered due to its subjectivity.    This is what a forum should be.

 

My main point would be in line with @GoPats, where I have to say I hate the "GOAT" moniker.  It seems to have become a generic term, where it is applied too far and wide and has lost its meaning IMO.   It also, as stated, is really difficult to quantify what it means and so, depending on your perspective, you can make an argument for any of the big names to be the "GOAT" in your own mind.  

 

To that end, if your position is that Brady is the Greatest, I doubt I could argue against your logic.  If your position is Manning is the Greatest, I doubt I could argue against your logic.

 

If you are asking my opinion though, my Horseshoe tinted glasses will always mean I side with Manning.  The 4 SB appearances with 4 different HC's and 2 different wins with 2 different teams is such a phenomenal achievement that I doubt it will ever be replicated.  I doubt we will ever really know how much of Brady's success is Belichick (and McDaniels) related but that does not diminish his achievements and performances on the field in any way, as it is not his fault his coaching situation has been so consistent and strong.

 

This ties in with the soccer debate of who is better, Messi or Ronaldo.  My position on that has always been along the lines of "can we not just be grateful that these two amazing players are playing at the same time"?  However, this position does not translate to this debate as there is no way I can say that I am "grateful" for Tom Brady!!! 

[GoPats]

On 2/12/2019 at 4:45 PM, Superman said:

 

Good post.

 

Speaking for myself, to the bolded, my comments about Brady benefiting from Belichick are not meant to discredit Brady. His resume stands on its own and speaks for itself.

 

My comments are a response to the general go-to statements that 'Brady just wins,' etc. I've always taken issue with that argument, because as we all know, the QB is just one piece of the puzzle. That's why I posted stats that show just how much of an outlier the Patriots' results have been over the last 17 years. The fact that the Patriots can and do win games even when the QB has an average performance -- and do so at a rate that no other team in history has done -- illustrates why it's a fallacy to say 'Brady just wins.' 

 

It doesn't take away from Brady, in my mind. He can lay claim to whatever title anyone wants to place on him, legitimately: career accomplishments, individual stats, performance in big moments, playoff comebacks, division dominance, longevity, production in his 40s... whatever it is, however we judge greatness for NFL QBs, he's at or near the top of every discussion.

 

 

Likewise (good post), and I 100% get it. It's been what, like 10-15 years? So I know where you're coming from buddy, lol... 

 

It's definitely an emotional, tied-to-where-your-heart-lies sort of issue. As you've very ably pointed out, even if he won just one Superbowl or maybe two, I think Brady still would deserve to be in the conversation... 

 

 

[GoPats]

5 hours ago, DaveA1102 said:

This is the first I have dove into this thread and, to echo @Mel Kiper's Hair's comments, kudos to all involved for a healthy and well-reasoned debate on a topic which will never be satisfactorily answered due to its subjectivity.    This is what a forum should be.

 

My main point would be in line with @GoPats, where I have to say I hate the "GOAT" moniker.  It seems to have become a generic term, where it is applied too far and wide and has lost its meaning IMO.   It also, as stated, is really difficult to quantify what it means and so, depending on your perspective, you can make an argument for any of the big names to be the "GOAT" in your own mind.  

 

To that end, if your position is that Brady is the Greatest, I doubt I could argue against your logic.  If your position is Manning is the Greatest, I doubt I could argue against your logic.

 

If you are asking my opinion though, my Horseshoe tinted glasses will always mean I side with Manning.  The 4 SB appearances with 4 different HC's and 2 different wins with 2 different teams is such a phenomenal achievement that I doubt it will ever be replicated.  I doubt we will ever really know how much of Brady's success is Belichick (and McDaniels) related but that does not diminish his achievements and performances on the field in any way, as it is not his fault his coaching situation has been so consistent and strong.

 

This ties in with the soccer debate of who is better, Messi or Ronaldo.  My position on that has always been along the lines of "can we not just be grateful that these two amazing players are playing at the same time"?  However, this position does not translate to this debate as there is no way I can say that I am "grateful" for Tom Brady!!! 

 

Completely understood and I love your take on it, lol... cheers. 

 

[wizwor]

7 hours ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

That's what I've said in my previous posts. I've said several times that I think they are pretty much equals in accomplishments on the field and that the reason I say Brady is the GOAT is because he has helped his team win 6 championships to Manning's 2.

 

Which is why I heart so many of your posts.  Sometimes we just want to hear other people say what we think.

[grm]

Brady is good, no doubt, arguably the best. But football more than any other sport, is the sum of the parts. Russell wasn't better than Jordan, Richard not better than Gretzky. 

All the debate against him as goat is valid, and calling it disingenuous smacks of bias. The rings enter the conversation, but play a minor role.

 

The best QB to me is Manning, Elway, or Montana...if I needed a QB to walk into a room of unknown players and had to win the game. Brady has benefited from the stability of his career more than any other, and hasn't had to face BB. Is he the goat...nope, not to me, but he's pretty good.

[NannyMcafee]

On 2/2/2019 at 3:32 PM, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

Brady shouldn't even be remotely in the conversation of GOAT!!! Especially when everyone knows he CHEATS!!!

 

Even without knowing they cheat, can you imagine his career with a 'average non-cheating' organization?

 

Since his only skill seems to be very short accurate passes(that opposing defenses don't usually try to defend) how can anyone even think he belongs even in the conversation?

 

Remember the great season of Matt Cassel? I want to see Belichick stay after Brady retires and prove to everyone that it doesn't matter what QB he has. 

 

Will it prove it to everyone? No. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

13 hours ago, grm said:

Brady is good, no doubt, arguably the best. But football more than any other sport, is the sum of the parts. Russell wasn't better than Jordan, Richard not better than Gretzky. 

All the debate against him as goat is valid, and calling it disingenuous smacks of bias. The rings enter the conversation, but play a minor role.

 

The best QB to me is Manning, Elway, or Montana...if I needed a QB to walk into a room of unknown players and had to win the game. Brady has benefited from the stability of his career more than any other, and hasn't had to face BB. Is he the goat...nope, not to me, but he's pretty good.

One reason why Rings is not the tell all is, anyone with half a brain knows Chamberlain was better than Russell. Russ had 11 rings and Chamberlain 2 but if they played one on one, Wilt would toy with him. Statistically it is a joke between those 2. 

 

The Ring factor is still important though and has to be factored in but it doesn't tell the whole story.

[aaron11]

23 hours ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

That's what I've said in my previous posts. I've said several times that I think they are pretty much equals in accomplishments on the field and that the reason I say Brady is the GOAT is because he has helped his team win 6 championships to Manning's 2.

i dont think that makes him the most talented.  would brady have 6 rings if he was on peytons teams?  peyton had pretty average coaching for quite a long time, i'll list the most relevant ones

 

imo peyton had one great coach(dungy)

 

one above average coach (GK)

 

one below average coach (mora).  this one is debatable, he got teams to the playoffs but never won a game.  he had talent to work with too

 

and one bad coach, caldwell.  he was good with QBs, but not as a head coach.  couldnt manage a game or lead a locker room

 

 

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

1 minute ago, aaron11 said:

i dont think that makes him the most talented.  would brady have 6 rings if he was on peytons teams?

 

imo peyton had one great coach(dungy)

 

one above average coach (GK)

 

one below average coach (mora).  this one is debatable, he got teams to the playoffs but never won a game.  he had talent to work with too

 

and one bad coach, caldwell.  he was good with QBs, but not as a head coach.  couldnt manage a game or lead a locker room

 

 

 

I've never said Brady was the most talented. He in no way, shape or form has the skill set of someone like Aaron Rodgers.

 

I don't think he would have won 6 on Peyton's teams but I think he would have won more than 2.

 

Everyone has different opinions on the coaches Manning has had. I am more than willing to concede that none of them are on the same level as Bill Belichick, but none of them were bad coaches. They all have winning records with and without Manning as QB. So it isn't like he had bums running the show. While everyone continues to go on about Bill Belichick it is important to remember he only has 1 playoff win where Tom Brady wasn't playing QB. Belichick wasn't Belichick until he had Tom Brady. There's something to be said about that.

 

 

 

 

 

[aaron11]

3 minutes ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

I've never said Brady was the most talented. He in no way, shape or form has the skill set of someone like Aaron Rodgers.

 

I don't think he would have won 6 on Peyton's teams but I think he would have won more than 2.

 

Everyone has different opinions on the coaches Manning has had. I am more than willing to concede that none of them are on the same level as Bill Belichick, but none of them were bad coaches. They all have winning records with and without Manning as QB. So it isn't like he had bums running the show. While everyone continues to go on about Bill Belichick it is important to remember he only has 1 playoff win where Tom Brady wasn't playing QB. Belichick wasn't Belichick until he had Tom Brady. There's something to be said about that.

 

 

 

 

 

i do think caldwell was "bad" as a head coach.  i bring it up because he lost a SB he should have won.  he was out coached by the saints and jets in the playoffs when we had the better team

 

mora was nothing special, he was a defensive coach when we won because of offense 

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

Just now, aaron11 said:

i do think caldwell was "bad" as a head coach.  i bring it up because he lost a SB he should have won.  he was out coached by the saints and jets in the playoffs when we had the better team

 I would counter that and say that he is the only coach since the 1970's to have a winning record in Detroit. He was out coached Sean Payton for sure but that doesn't make him a bad coach. If Garcon doesn't have that big drop early in the game, if the game had a normal halftime where Dwight Freeney doesn't tighten up, there were more factors to losing that Super Bowl than just Caldwell. 

[aaron11]

1 minute ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 I would counter that and say that he is the only coach since the 1970's to have a winning record in Detroit. He was out coached Sean Payton for sure but that doesn't make him a bad coach. If Garcon doesn't have that big drop early in the game, if the game had a normal halftime where Dwight Freeney doesn't tighten up, there were more factors to losing that Super Bowl than just Caldwell. 

 

he was clearly good with QBs, but i dont think hes quality head coach material.  i feel the colts and lions both realized this after a few seasons

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

6 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

 

he was clearly good with QBs, but i dont think hes quality head coach material.  i feel the colts and lions both realized this after a few seasons

 

I would say look what happened in Detroit this season without Caldwell. They sure didn't look better with Matt Patricia as head coach and the record definitely says they weren't better. The guy may have no personality but he wins.

[ColtsBlueFL]

On 2/12/2019 at 5:43 AM, 18to87 said:

 

I was more referring to the multiple threat "pick your poison" offense which was at its best when Stokley was healthy and playing well and Manning was using Clark as a chess piece. Those

 

couple of seasons set the wheels in motion towards the pass-happy NFL

 

we see today IMO. You can argue that the Patriots took it to another level with Welker, Gronk and Hernandez. Then, Manning got one back with Julius Thomas as his new chess piece before the Broncos got sick of him not run blocking which was perhaps the death knell of PM's days as an elite QB. Anyway, I digress...       

 

Like most things, there's more to the story.  I argue the Bill Polian and the competition committee placing a 'point of emphasis' for 2004 on the illegal contact rule already on the books { some incorrectly state Polian made the NFL create a new rule because of the Pats' DB's in the 2003 AFC playoffs } but essentially not enforced.  10 years later it had to be 're-emphasized' once more.

 

That has had a major impact on the passing game in the NFL, for every team. It is true some teams had the personnel and scheme to take advantage earlier than others though.

[crazycolt1]

6 hours ago, aaron11 said:

i do think caldwell was "bad" as a head coach.  i bring it up because he lost a SB he should have won.  he was out coached by the saints and jets in the playoffs when we had the better team

 

mora was nothing special, he was a defensive coach when we won because of offense 

Caldwell was not a bad coach. He was pre maturely fired from the Colts.

[Chrisaaron1023]

Just adding some firewood here. Don't mind me

[18to87]

20 hours ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

While everyone continues to go on about Bill Belichick it is important to remember he only has 1 playoff win where Tom Brady wasn't playing QB. Belichick wasn't Belichick until he had Tom Brady. There's something to be said about that.

 

 

What about his record as a DC?

 

Aside from a couple of last minute drives finished by clutch Viniteri kicks, you can argue that Tom Brady already had three rings before he was Tom Brady. `It is hard to deny that those three rings were led by an all-time great defense*. 

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

On 2/16/2019 at 5:50 AM, 18to87 said:

 

What about his record as a DC?

 

Aside from a couple of last minute drives finished by clutch Viniteri kicks, you can argue that Tom Brady already had three rings before he was Tom Brady. `It is hard to deny that those three rings were led by an all-time great defense*. 

 

Last I checked defensive coordinators aren't given wins and losses. And in those instances he didn't have to worry about the total game plan. He was working with another Hall of Fame coach in Bill Parcells. I'm not denying Belichick's greatness as a coach.

 

I have to disagree with the statement about Brady having 3 Super Bowls before he was Tom Brady.  Granted in his 1st Super Bowl he only threw for around a 150 yds but he led the drive with around 90 seconds left to set up the game winning kick and earned game MVP. His 2nd Super Bowl he threw for 354 yds and 3 TD's and led a drive with about a minute left to set up the game winning field goal. He was the Super Bowl MVP again.  Having to score 32 to win the game isn't a sign of an all time great defense.

 

I am in no way saying that Belichick can't win without Brady, but I wouldn't say that Brady couldn't win without Belichick either. Brady has benefited from having the greatest coach of all time and Belichick has benefited from having the greatest QB of all time. The 2 cannot be separated.

[GoPats]

2 hours ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

I have to disagree with the statement about Brady having 3 Super Bowls before he was Tom Brady.  Granted in his 1st Super Bowl he only threw for around a 150 yds but he led the drive with around 90 seconds left to set up the game winning kick and earned game MVP. His 2nd Super Bowl he threw for 354 yds and 3 TD's and led a drive with about a minute left to set up the game winning field goal. He was the Super Bowl MVP again.  Having to score 32 to win the game isn't a sign of an all time great defense.

 

I am in no way saying that Belichick can't win without Brady, but I wouldn't say that Brady couldn't win without Belichick either. Brady has benefited from having the greatest coach of all time and Belichick has benefited from having the greatest QB of all time. The 2 cannot be separated.

 

Thank you for pointing that out. SB 36 (vs. the Rams) was the defensive gem among those first three... that's where the D carried them. But SB 38 (Panthers) turned into a shootout. I believe the two teams 37 fourth-quarter combined points is still a record. 

 

The next year (SB 39, vs. the Eagles) was a more balanced team, with Corey Dillon making a huge impact. 

 

Vinatieri gets a lot of credit for his game-winning kicks, as he well deserves... but his legacy is really defined by the "Snow Bowl/Tuck Rule Game" kicks. In SB 36 (Rams), he hit a 48 yarder, indoors. In SB 38 (Panthers), the game-winner was a 41 yarder (and he had a 36 yard attempt blocked earlier in the game, and outright missed a 31-yarder). Then against the Eagles in SB 39, he hit a 22-yard FG with 7 minutes left that gave NE a 10-point lead. 

 

Point being, as a Pats fan I'll always be grateful for Vinatieri, but the SB winning kicks were all kicks that any good kicker should make. It's not like he hit 60-yarders outdoors... they were all in domes or good weather. Without the drives orchestrated by Brady, those kicks never happen.

 

[horseshoecrabs]

Each era of football has it's dynasty's  at the time some longer than others. But the one constant I have seen decade after decade for the last sixty years is as time moves on it fades. The NFL (NOT For Long) has a way of reinventing itself. over time. What seems extremely relevant in the present has a way of fading over time.  As the game changes in the future newer fans will only be interested in what's going on in their present time and limited past. The more time that passes to them will be the same old argument from past dominate teams, Like oh those old guys couldn't be that good in todays era, the game has changed, bigger and faster players, better training now, rules are different, The game will always evolve over time ,But the fan's point of view stays the same with each generation.  So if you are a Patriot fan enjoy your world , because it to will become a thing of the past like most other fan's teams has had to endure over time.