@perkdog said:
I absolutely do not want to debate anyone that thinks Ken Anderson was a better QB than Tom Brady. But out of curiousity, why don’t YOU tell me why you think Ken Anderson was better? I mean if it’s just one of those things like saying you like the color Blue Better than Red then ok fine but if you can can up with logically soubd examples of where Anderson excelled over Brady then please let’s hear them.
Not sure if you read my last post before writing this, but my overall point is that in a team game like football, there is no such thing as an objective argument - leaving aside the QBs who come and go quickly because they objectively suck - that can separate one excellent QB from another. Objectively, they both have great stats, and they both led the league in stuff. But objectively, Brady had better teammates than Anderson, and by a mile and a half. How much does that affect the stats of Anderson relative to those of Brady? I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows. Subjectively, I watched Anderson play QB for years, and I've watched Brady play QB for years, and I think Anderson was a little bit better than Brady. That's it.
Now, you make an argument for Brady being the GOAT that doesn't rely at all on his teammates. Trick challenge; you can't do that because there is no possible way to do that. You tell me about his passing stats and you are, by definition, telling me also about his receivers and the linemen blocking for him, not to mention the quality of the Pats running game that kept more opponents close to the line rather than back in coverage. Make any argument you want that Brady was the GOAT, and I'll consider and respect your conclusion as much as I respect any other conclusion. Unless, that is, you bring up how many rings Brady has. That's an objectively terrible argument, and there's no way to treat it with respect.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Tom Brady is the GOAT hands down, and it's not even close. He pushes everyone on the Patriots to play their hardest. He will accept nothing less. He has the stats, the rings, and he's still going. Hell, he could play another ten years. He eats right, takes care of his body and health, and works hard. I'm pretty sure he will have more rings before he eventually retires at the age of 60. The GOAT hands down, and it's not even close.
the flaw in the "Jordan as GOAT or Lebron as GOAT" debate needs to be examined by viewing old footage of games from the 1950's until the three point line was established. at that time most of the action was centered in the key or within a few feet of it. the NBA today is fundamentally a different game which makes it difficult to compare the best players from "then" to the best players of "now" fairly.
the same could be said today of the NFL which is why I have a problem with Tom Brady as the GOAT when compared to players who played in the past. we can start with the Tuck Rule and move on to all the other rules in place today which are there specifically to protect QB's. it distorts what they do compared to what guys from the past did. just consider Dan Marino, he did the things Brady does without the help of those rules, just not quite as good when looking at TD's and Int's. the question becomes: What could Marino have done with today's rules? --- or --- What would Brady do with the rules of the 70's?? I have maintained for a while that Brady playing in the 1960's-1970's would have been much different, he more than likely would have been injured more and perhaps had a shorter career.
we will never know, that's what makes the comparisons hard. Tom Brady is without a doubt the best QB in this Century, that is the most I can say with reasonable certainty, but even that is being challenged by Russell Wilson. consider these numbers through eight seasons for Brady and an incomplete eighth season for Wilson:
Tom Brady, 8 seasons --- 197 TD's and 86 Int's.
Russell Wilson, 7 seasons and 8 games --- 213 TD's and 64 Int's.
even when we throw away Tom Brady's 2000 and 2008 seasons and substitute 2009 the stats aren't even really close, Russell Wilson is the better QB. I would say that if Wilson stays healthy and approaches 17-18 years playing at the level he has played at, that he will eclipse the stats of Tom Brady. additionally, I would say that Wilson would have done just fine in past eras.
at that point the only argument in Brady's favor will be Championships, but I don't think that's a good measuring stick.
@perkdog said:
I absolutely do not want to debate anyone that thinks Ken Anderson was a better QB than Tom Brady. But out of curiousity, why don’t YOU tell me why you think Ken Anderson was better? I mean if it’s just one of those things like saying you like the color Blue Better than Red then ok fine but if you can can up with logically soubd examples of where Anderson excelled over Brady then please let’s hear them.
Not sure if you read my last post before writing this, but my overall point is that in a team game like football, there is no such thing as an objective argument - leaving aside the QBs who come and go quickly because they objectively suck - that can separate one excellent QB from another. Objectively, they both have great stats, and they both led the league in stuff. But objectively, Brady had better teammates than Anderson, and by a mile and a half. How much does that affect the stats of Anderson relative to those of Brady? I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows. Subjectively, I watched Anderson play QB for years, and I've watched Brady play QB for years, and I think Anderson was a little bit better than Brady. That's it.
Now, you make an argument for Brady being the GOAT that doesn't rely at all on his teammates. Trick challenge; you can't do that because there is no possible way to do that. You tell me about his passing stats and you are, by definition, telling me also about his receivers and the linemen blocking for him, not to mention the quality of the Pats running game that kept more opponents close to the line rather than back in coverage. Make any argument you want that Brady was the GOAT, and I'll consider and respect your conclusion as much as I respect any other conclusion. Unless, that is, you bring up how many rings Brady has. That's an objectively terrible argument, and there's no way to treat it with respect.
I did read your posts, I’m not sure if you read mine but again I feel that in the GOAT conversation for NFL I adamantly believe that the QB position is the most important overall, call it Luck or whatever you want but I think it’s reasonable to discuss players in a certain category that have had the fortunes of great situations and took full advantage of it like the Elways’s, Montana’s & Brady’s of the world and then you chose who you believe is the best of the best. Had Montana played on the Bengals and Anderson the 49’ers maybe it would be Anderson vs Brady in most people’s minds rather than Montana vs a Brady, but it’s NOT how it worked out so I think it’s logical to discuss amongst the names we have to work with and I just don’t think Anderson belongs in the conversation regardless if it’s unfair or not. To sit there and dismiss Brady since you say he just had better teammates than Anderson is ridiculous in my opinion, but if that’s your way of thinking then it’s certainly your right.
I watched a lot of Anderson's games and thought he registered pretty high on the suck-meter. for Christ sake, in 17 years the guy didn't even have 200 TD's and was almost as good at throwing Int's as connecting in the endzone. his average year was something like 12/9 and he actually had several years where he threw more Int's than TD's. that's pretty bad.
@perkdog said:
Had Montana played on the Bengals and Anderson the 49’ers maybe it would be Anderson vs Brady in most people’s minds rather than Montana vs a Brady, but it’s NOT how it worked out so I think it’s logical to discuss amongst the names we have to work with and I just don’t think Anderson belongs in the conversation regardless if it’s unfair or not. To sit there and dismiss Brady since you say he just had better teammates than Anderson is ridiculous in my opinion, but if that’s your way of thinking then it’s certainly your right.
As I said, when you start with the assumption that the GOAT has to have been a QB, and has to have been a QB on a great team, you are going to conclude that the GOAT is the QB on the greatest team. I just don't see the point of pretending any thought went into the conclusion when all you're doing is concluding what you assumed initially.
And I'm not "dismissing" Brady; I said he was as good a candidate as any for GOAT, but I'm also saying the fact that he has been surrounded by a great team for his entire career is not evidence of GOAT-hood one way or the other. If someone. someday, develops a system to objectively demonstrate who the NFL GOAT is, and you and I both accept that this system works, I will hardly be shocked if it turned out the GOAT was Brady. But I'll guarantee you that if such a system ever does exist, it will not count rings.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
Dallasactuary says--
And in a team game like football, nobody can make an argument to refute my belief because no such argument can exist.
By that dumb logic I can say Mario Mendoza was the best baseball player of all time.
If anyone objects all I say is Team game! Team game!
So help me, you'd think after all this time the depth of your ignorance would have ceased to amaze me. But this was an amazing post.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@perkdog said:
Had Montana played on the Bengals and Anderson the 49’ers maybe it would be Anderson vs Brady in most people’s minds rather than Montana vs a Brady, but it’s NOT how it worked out so I think it’s logical to discuss amongst the names we have to work with and I just don’t think Anderson belongs in the conversation regardless if it’s unfair or not. To sit there and dismiss Brady since you say he just had better teammates than Anderson is ridiculous in my opinion, but if that’s your way of thinking then it’s certainly your right.
As I said, when you start with the assumption that the GOAT has to have been a QB, and has to have been a QB on a great team, you are going to conclude that the GOAT is the QB on the greatest team. I just don't see the point of pretending any thought went into the conclusion when all you're doing is concluding what you assumed initially.
And I'm not "dismissing" Brady; I said he was as good a candidate as any for GOAT, but I'm also saying the fact that he has been surrounded by a great team for his entire career is not evidence of GOAT-hood one way or the other. If someone. someday, develops a system to objectively demonstrate who the NFL GOAT is, and you and I both accept that this system works, I will hardly be shocked if it turned out the GOAT was Brady. But I'll guarantee you that if such a system ever does exist, it will not count rings.
Please tell me about all these “Great” teams or players that he had surrounding him over 20 years though. I ask you to name a single WR that left the Patriots and had continued success with another QB. Outside of Gronk, and Moss for a short time he has not had a single HOF WR around him. And your wrong I have given it plenty of thought based on me watching him actually play over the past 20 years, I didn’t just come up with a conclusion all of a sudden that Brady is the Best because he has 6 rings or that he is my favorite player on my favorite team, sure I’m biased and have openly said that numerous times here that’s no secret. I’ve stated that for the first half of his career I thought Manning was better but damn you got a guy leading his team at a high level over the age of 40. I’ve watched his throws, his pocket presence, his ability to protect himself from getting hit harder than he needs too during sacks, I’ve seen him pinpoint his throws, I’ve seen him make adjustments during broken down plays, ect.. ect.. I’ve made my assumptions on a lot more than his championships
@Darin said:
Dallasactuary says--
And in a team game like football, nobody can make an argument to refute my belief because no such argument can exist.
By that dumb logic I can say Mario Mendoza was the best baseball player of all time.
If anyone objects all I say is Team game! Team game!
So help me, you'd think after all this time the depth of your ignorance would have ceased to amaze me. But this was an amazing post.
That is what your logic boils down to, that any
baseball player can be the GOAT simply because its a team game, same as your argument for football.
You've trapped yourself here and instead of admitting it you of course turn to insults.
I did forget to say checkmate. No response necessary, you're beat and you know it.
@Darin said:
That is what your logic boils down to, that any
baseball player can be the GOAT simply because its a team game, same as your argument for football.
You've trapped yourself here and instead of admitting it you of course turn to insults.
I did forget to say checkmate. No response necessary, you're beat and you know it.
I wish you had said checkmate, that would have made it even funnier.
Had you understood it the thousand previous times I've posted it, you'd know that baseball is not a "team game", as I use the phrase. Obviously, the players are grouped into teams, but when a player is at bat there is nobody to block for him, nobody to harass the pitcher as he tries to throw it, and no other options as far as who the pitcher is going to throw to. The batter may be a member of a team, but when he is at the plate that makes no difference; he's on his own. Same thing for the pitcher, and the same thing for the outfielder or infielder at whom the ball is hit. Baseball has some team elements with double plays, or hit and runs, and a few other things, but it's about 99% an individual sport. And in individual sports, like baseball, allocating credit for runs scored and runs allowed - and therefore wins and losses - is relatively straightforward.
Not so - not so at all - in team sports like football. Troy Aikman can have a record of 0-11 with a crappy offensive line in front of him and no Emmitt Smith in the backfield, or he can be 14-13 with a crappy offensive line in front of him but with Emmitt Smith in the backfield, or he can be 56-19 and win 3 Super Bowls in five years with HOFers in every direction he looks. But he's Troy Aikman in whichever situation he may find himself. Put Tom Brady on the Cowboys in Aikman's rookie season and he gets sacked a whole lot, he leads the league in nothing, and he loses a ton more games than he wins. But he'd still be Tom Brady, no better or no worse than he is on the Patriots. Put Ted Williams on the Red Sox and he's arguably the best hitter of all time and he has no rings. Put him on the Yankees instead and he's exactly the same hitter, but he has handfuls of rings. Bradys stats change, dramatically, if you put him on a terrible team; Williams' stats (the one's the matter, not runs scored and RBI) stay pretty much the same no matter which team he's on. See the difference?
The day you, of all people, checkmate me I'll know I've got Alzheimer's or something even worse. If you think you have, you've completely misunderstood something very important and you should try to figure out what that is before saying another word. Free advice for you to ignore, but don't ever say I didn't try.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
That is what your logic boils down to, that any
baseball player can be the GOAT simply because its a team game, same as your argument for football.
You've trapped yourself here and instead of admitting it you of course turn to insults.
I did forget to say checkmate. No response necessary, you're beat and you know it.
I wish you had said checkmate, that would have made it even funnier.
Had you understood it the thousand previous times I've posted it, you'd know that baseball is not a "team game", as I use the phrase. Obviously, the players are grouped into teams, but when a player is at bat there is nobody to block for him, nobody to harass the pitcher as he tries to throw it, and no other options as far as who the pitcher is going to throw to. The batter may be a member of a team, but when he is at the plate that makes no difference; he's on his own. Same thing for the pitcher, and the same thing for the outfielder or infielder at whom the ball is hit. Baseball has some team elements with double plays, or hit and runs, and a few other things, but it's about 99% an individual sport. And in individual sports, like baseball, allocating credit for runs scored and runs allowed - and therefore wins and losses - is relatively straightforward.
Not so - not so at all - in team sports like football. Troy Aikman can have a record of 0-11 with a crappy offensive line in front of him and no Emmitt Smith in the backfield, or he can be 14-13 with a crappy offensive line in front of him but with Emmitt Smith in the backfield, or he can be 56-19 and win 3 Super Bowls in five years with HOFers in every direction he looks. But he's Troy Aikman in whichever situation he may find himself. Put Tom Brady on the Cowboys in Aikman's rookie season and he gets sacked a whole lot, he leads the league in nothing, and he loses a ton more games than he wins. But he'd still be Tom Brady, no better or no worse than he is on the Patriots. Put Ted Williams on the Red Sox and he's arguably the best hitter of all time and he has no rings. Put him on the Yankees instead and he's exactly the same hitter, but he has handfuls of rings. Bradys stats change, dramatically, if you put him on a terrible team; Williams' stats (the one's the matter, not runs scored and RBI) stay pretty much the same no matter which team he's on. See the difference?
So we should ignore Drew Brees all time passing stats since he was forced to throw the football relentlessly seeings how his teams usually found themselves down by 2 TD’s going into the second half of the majority of his games, his passing yards are an illusion since they couldn’t just run the ball and control the clock because they needed to move the ball quick. That’s the only reason he has massive passing yards, we should ignore Jerry Rice ridiculous numbers since he played for so long? Emmett Smith rushing yards should not be considered HOF worthy since he played behind such a great line and if he played on the Texans when they first came into the league and had one of the worst lines ever? That’s sort of your view point with Brady, as I said fortune shines on some players right wrong or indifferent but the numbers are what they are. We can’t hold them against players due to “What ifs” that’s my point. Again please inform me of all these great players Brady had and when they left Foxboro flourished with other teams.
@keets said:
I watched a lot of Anderson's games and thought he registered pretty high on the suck-meter. for Christ sake, in 17 years the guy didn't even have 200 TD's and was almost as good at throwing Int's as connecting in the endzone. his average year was something like 12/9 and he actually had several years where he threw more Int's than TD's. that's pretty bad.
He sure did throw some interceptions! So did everybody else. In 1974 and 1975 combined, Roger Staubach threw 28 TDs and 31 INT.
From 1972-82 Ken was in the top 6 in interception % eight times! In 1982 at/near the end of his effectiveness he led the league in completion % interception % and QB Rating, I don't see Brady ever doing that.
Back in the dark ages when I watched Joe Kapp and a host of others and then Fran Tarkenton QB the Vikings, a 50% completion rate was considered acceptable now it's 65%, the leading receiver averaged a little less than 20 yards per reception. now it's around 15, and interceptions were higher. You could lead the league with an interception rate at or around 3% now you have to be at 1.5%.
It becomes obvious (to me) that when the QBs threw the ball downfield further, they threw for a lower completion % and a higher interception %. Receivers had a higher YPC.
Now, the game is different and we look at the numbers differently, which makes a lot of the old timers look BAD, when they were not.
I ask you to name a single WR that left the Patriots and had continued success with another QB. Outside of Gronk, and Moss for a short time he has not had a single HOF WR around him.
Wes Welker and Julian Edelman were VERY good receivers Deion Branch was pretty good too. If you set the bar at HOF and say they had to have success with other QBs, that makes it tough.......well, impossible and sort of silly imo.
Other than Issac Curtis, Ken Anderson didn't have a lot to work with, Charlie Joiner for a couple of years.
Name ONE even decent receiver to play with Fran Tarkenton!
I won't even qualify it as being a HOFer who had success with a different QB. I will be shocked if you can even name one receiver who played with Fran before the very end of his career.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Yes the game is different today. How soon until QBs wear a skirt? Let me know when someone plays ten years, every year in the Championship game. Let me know when a QB sets the record for most yards per pass attempt. Until then Otto Graham is looking down having a good laugh.
stating the above about Russell Wilson is an interesting point, especially since you/us seem so willing to state it about the still-active Tom Brady.
to be sure, if you go re-read what I posted it was an argument that says Tom Brady is currently being challenged by Wilson as the best in this Century, no GOAT.
to the post-ACL Brady, what changed about the Patriots to improve him so much??
@keets said: let’s save the GOAT talk until he retires
stating the above about Russell Wilson is an interesting point, especially since you/us seem so willing to state it about the still-active Tom Brady.
to be sure, if you go re-read what I posted it was an argument that says Tom Brady is currently being challenged by Wilson as the best in this Century, no GOAT.
to the post-ACL Brady, what changed about the Patriots to improve him so much??
Well I thought it was fair to say that Wilson probably has another 10 years of Football in him if all things go in his favor. Brady has some serious seniority on him
@perkdog said:
So we should ignore Drew Brees all time passing stats since he was forced to throw the football relentlessly seeings how his teams usually found themselves down by 2 TD’s going into the second half of the majority of his games, his passing yards are an illusion since they couldn’t just run the ball and control the clock because they needed to move the ball quick. That’s the only reason he has massive passing yards, we should ignore Jerry Rice ridiculous numbers since he played for so long? Emmett Smith rushing yards should not be considered HOF worthy since he played behind such a great line and if he played on the Texans when they first came into the league and had one of the worst lines ever? That’s sort of your view point with Brady, as I said fortune shines on some players right wrong or indifferent but the numbers are what they are. We can’t hold them against players due to “What ifs” that’s my point. Again please inform me of all these great players Brady had and when they left Foxboro flourished with other teams.
You're not listening. I never said we should "ignore" anything. But, to take one of your examples, while we don't "ignore" Emmitt Smith's rushing stats, neither do we ignore the fact that Emmett Smith had one of the best O-lines in history in front of him. They both matter. There is a huge difference between having an open hole in front of you on virtually every play (the Smith model), and having to create one yourself (the Campbell model). I think Earl Campbell was a vastly better running back than Emmitt Smith; Smith was still great, but Campbell was the best I've ever seen. That is the point that I'm making - you simply can't evaluate any player in isolation, you have to take into account the contributions, or lack thereof, of all of the other players who contributed, or not, to his success. And in a team game like football, that isn't possible to do objectively.
As for Brady's teammates, I made those comments in the context of "counting rings". The Patriots have won all those Super Bowls because they have had great teams, year in and year out. You mention wide receivers, but I was referring to the entire team, from the kickers to the linebackers to the guards to the defensive ends. The Patriots win lots of games, and Super Bowls, because they consistently score more points than they allow their opponents to score. Brady is no doubt a large part of 45% of that, but the defense gets 45% of the credit, too, and 10% to the kickers. (I made up those numbers, but you get my point). So when you're allocating the 45% of the credit that the offense gets, are you allocating the entire 45% to Brady? Surely not, that would be ridiculous. How much of the 45% are you giving to Brady, then? The Pats have had terrific linemen consistently, and while WR and RB who were world-class have come and gone, the Pats other skill position players on offense have never been less than "good". Go through that exercise (hypothetically, as I said it's not actually possible) and you'll get some number for Brady that shows he gets significantly less than 45% of the credit for the Pats success. Go through that same exercise for a bad team with another great QB, say the Bengals in the 70's and 80's, and you'll get a number for that team's QB. My belief, purely subjectively, is that if doing this analysis were possible then Ken Anderson's number would be greater than Tom Brady's number.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@keets said: let’s save the GOAT talk until he retires
stating the above about Russell Wilson is an interesting point, especially since you/us seem so willing to state it about the still-active Tom Brady.
to be sure, if you go re-read what I posted it was an argument that says Tom Brady is currently being challenged by Wilson as the best in this Century, no GOAT.
to the post-ACL Brady, what changed about the Patriots to improve him so much??
Well I thought it was fair to say that Wilson probably has another 10 years of Football in him if all things go in his favor. Brady has some serious seniority on him
The difference is (and it is big) Brady has already accomplished enough to be the GOAT. While Wilson is a great QB he has not.
@perkdog said:
So we should ignore Drew Brees all time passing stats since he was forced to throw the football relentlessly seeings how his teams usually found themselves down by 2 TD’s going into the second half of the majority of his games, his passing yards are an illusion since they couldn’t just run the ball and control the clock because they needed to move the ball quick. That’s the only reason he has massive passing yards, we should ignore Jerry Rice ridiculous numbers since he played for so long? Emmett Smith rushing yards should not be considered HOF worthy since he played behind such a great line and if he played on the Texans when they first came into the league and had one of the worst lines ever? That’s sort of your view point with Brady, as I said fortune shines on some players right wrong or indifferent but the numbers are what they are. We can’t hold them against players due to “What ifs” that’s my point. Again please inform me of all these great players Brady had and when they left Foxboro flourished with other teams.
You're not listening. I never said we should "ignore" anything. But, to take one of your examples, while we don't "ignore" Emmitt Smith's rushing stats, neither do we ignore the fact that Emmett Smith had one of the best O-lines in history in front of him. They both matter. There is a huge difference between having an open hole in front of you on virtually every play (the Smith model), and having to create one yourself (the Campbell model). I think Earl Campbell was a vastly better running back than Emmitt Smith; Smith was still great, but Campbell was the best I've ever seen. That is the point that I'm making - you simply can't evaluate any player in isolation, you have to take into account the contributions, or lack thereof, of all of the other players who contributed, or not, to his success. And in a team game like football, that isn't possible to do objectively.
As for Brady's teammates, I made those comments in the context of "counting rings". The Patriots have won all those Super Bowls because they have had great teams, year in and year out. You mention wide receivers, but I was referring to the entire team, from the kickers to the linebackers to the guards to the defensive ends. The Patriots win lots of games, and Super Bowls, because they consistently score more points than they allow their opponents to score. Brady is no doubt a large part of 45% of that, but the defense gets 45% of the credit, too, and 10% to the kickers. (I made up those numbers, but you get my point). So when you're allocating the 45% of the credit that the offense gets, are you allocating the entire 45% to Brady? Surely not, that would be ridiculous. How much of the 45% are you giving to Brady, then? The Pats have had terrific linemen consistently, and while WR and RB who were world-class have come and gone, the Pats other skill position players on offense have never been less than "good". Go through that exercise (hypothetically, as I said it's not actually possible) and you'll get some number for Brady that shows he gets significantly less than 45% of the credit for the Pats success. Go through that same exercise for a bad team with another great QB, say the Bengals in the 70's and 80's, and you'll get a number for that team's QB. My belief, purely subjectively, is that if doing this analysis were possible then Ken Anderson's number would be greater than Tom Brady's number.
I can appreciate your post, really I do. Your opinion is interesting with the percentages you put up and I say this subjectively as you stated, I really can’t wrap my head around it completely but I sort of understand. I know the Pats success is not entirely on Brady alone but I do hold him in a very high regard as you know. I’m happy to continue to believe he is the GOAT and that’s my bottom line. That being said I don’t believe I’m all homer in thinking this way but I will admit there is no clear cut way to differentiate the true method of deciding this between the large pool of NFL greats throughout all the decades. Putting it all together with stats, longevity, championships, ect.. Brady doesn’t have much else he can do to prove himself as the greatest in my opinion. I will agree with you about Earl Campbell for sure, I rate him right behind Barry Sanders
No, I followed his career. He was one of the best for a four season stretch, 1972-75. Sammy White was another pretty damn good receiver. I still remember when he got his helmet knocked off in the Super Bowl against the Raiders.
Not taking into account the number of Super Bowl titles a player has won in determining his standing on the list of of all-time greats is preposterous. Of course rings count. It is the singular goal of every football player who ever puts on pads. The quality of opponents faced in the playoffs ramps up considerably over the regular season, the intensity level is exponentially higher, and brings out the best in players of all skill levels. Not counting championships as a criteria for greatness only gives solace to fans of also-ran teams, who fantasize about what-if, instead of accepting the reality of their team’s marginal existence.
@45isodd said:
No, I followed his career. He was one of the best for a four season stretch, 1972-75. Sammy White was another pretty damn good receiver. I still remember when he got his helmet knocked off in the Super Bowl against the Raiders.
Gilliam was a very good receiver even before he came to Minnesota. Sammy White played two full years with Fran 1976 and 1978 along with Ahmad Rashad. Fran didn't have much in the tank by 1978.
Foreman was a nice back for catching passes with one terrific year 73 receptions in 1975. He wasn't a great back though, his yards per carry was about 4 in his best years. Short career too.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
That more or less lets the air out of your argument that Tarkenton had no one to throw the ball to. Perhaps that was true his first go-round with the Vikes, but certainly not the second time around.
@45isodd said:
Not taking into account the number of Super Bowl titles a player has won in determining his standing on the list of of all-time greats is preposterous. Of course rings count. It is the singular goal of every football player who ever puts on pads. The quality of opponents faced in the playoffs ramps up considerably over the regular season, the intensity level is exponentially higher, and brings out the best in players of all skill levels. Not counting championships as a criteria for greatness only gives solace to fans of also-ran teams, who fantasize about what-if, instead of accepting the reality of their team’s marginal existence.
It should be a consideration, but as DA pointed out, the QB is one of fifty players.
Rings should be more relevant in basketball where a Kobe or LeBron or Jordan can take over the offense and account for half the scoring in a given championship game.
@45isodd said:
Not taking into account the number of Super Bowl titles a player has won in determining his standing on the list of of all-time greats is preposterous. Of course rings count. It is the singular goal of every football player who ever puts on pads. The quality of opponents faced in the playoffs ramps up considerably over the regular season, the intensity level is exponentially higher, and brings out the best in players of all skill levels. Not counting championships as a criteria for greatness only gives solace to fans of also-ran teams, who fantasize about what-if, instead of accepting the reality of their team’s marginal existence.
Nice rant. Meaningless and overwrought, but full of spit and vinegar. If you, and others, would tweak this argument to say that "rings count" when identifying the greatest TEAMS of all time, then you'd be making an argument you could defend without all the emotion, and nobody would disagree with you.
As it stands, your argument either leads to the conclusion that every single player on Super Bowl winning teams is better than all the players on the "also-ran" teams, or that Brady, and Brady alone, gets lots of extra credit for the Pats wins because you just know, somehow, that he deserves it and all the other players don't. The first argument is just so stupid that I won't insult you by implying you believe it. The second argument - the one where great linemen, linebackers, running backs, tight ends, kickers, punters, corners, and safeties can just suck it - is the one you're really making. I don't know why, and I won't until you or someone explains why. Let's just say that until you do, what you're saying makes absolutely no sense to me.
P.S. When you say "not taking into account the number of Super Bowl titles a player has won" you're making a case that nobody needs to make. If Tom Brady ever takes the field and beats the NFC champion team all by himself, then he will clearly have earned the GOAT title not just for football but for all human achievement. But Brady didn't ever do that - the Patriots did that. And it was the Patriots that won those Super Bowls, not Tom Brady.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@45isodd said:
That more or less lets the air out of your argument that Tarkenton had no one to throw the ball to. Perhaps that was true his first go-round with the Vikes, but certainly not the second time around.
Definitely LESS.
Fran had ONE guy in Gilliam for 4 years. One running back at the end of his career and one+ wide out for a year and a half when he was 36 years old. First 11 years of his career he had squat. Tarkenton still ended his playing days the leader in every major passing statistic.
My gosh Brady had Welker, Moss, Gronk and Edelman all on the same squad! But it gets said Brady had no one to throw to. Do you guys actually believe the stuff you say?
I thought Packer fans were delusional.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Dallas, you can make your points without turning into Moe Howard, really childish the way you throw out insults with such infantile intent. Of the Patriots six Super Bowl victories, there has been only one constant. The roster changes from year to year, some players last longer than others. But the one and only constant on all of those teams is Brady. Now obviously, there are those who are gonna argue that Belichick is the reason why the Pats have won so many titles, and that remains to be seen if he’ll win any more SB’s once Brady retires. But Brady’s sustained excellence, at an age when ALL other quarterbacks of his stature had long been retired, while he is still at the top of his game, leaves no doubt that he is the Greatest of All Time.
@45isodd said:
Dallas, you can make your points without turning into Moe Howard, really childish the way you throw out insults with such infantile intent.
Note to self: 45isodd's skin is paper thin.
I had to go back and read what I posted because I didn't recall insulting you, let along doing so with infantile intent. I guess calling your argument "meaningless and overwrought" is what you're referring to, and if that got your panties in a twist then I think I'll just ignore you unless you can tell me how to refer to future arguments that you make that are meaningless and overwrought in a way that you don't consider insulting.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@45isodd said:
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that you’re autistic. I’ll be more mindful of your “gift” in the future.
That seemed funny until I realized that it, too, didn't mean anything. But whatever it was you think it meant, please note that you don't need to be "mindful" of anything on my behalf; my skin is as thick as it can be. But if you feel the tears coming to your eyes again, just use your safe word ("buttercup") and I'll talk to the adults until you compose yourself.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
My belief, purely subjectively, is that if doing this analysis were possible then Ken Anderson's number would be greater than Tom Brady's number.
Let’s take a hypothetical that’s impossible to measure, and apply it to two players who played in different eras, and I’ll say that Player A has a higher number than Player B, although it is impossible to quantify. Only a person who falls somewhere on the spectrum would even posit such a ridiculous statement.
@45isodd said: My belief, purely subjectively, is that if doing this analysis were possible then Ken Anderson's number would be greater than Tom Brady's number.
Let’s take a hypothetical that’s impossible to measure, and apply it to two players who played in different eras, and I’ll say that Player A has a higher number than Player B, although it is impossible to quantify. Only a person who falls somewhere on the spectrum would even posit such a ridiculous statement.
Only a person on a different spectrum, if you know what I mean, would fail to grasp the point I was making. I don't think I can explain it with nothing but one syllable words, so I think you're out of luck. But I think Darin has some extra Cheetos if you're looking for something to do.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
He's not a household name, but Homer Jones was a fine receiver both before and during the years Tarkenton was on the Giants.
Yes, he was above average. Two years (1967 and 1968) with Fran he was a stud, only played 4/5 full years in the NFL though. At least 6 receivers played with Brady who were better. Gilliam was very good for 2+ years with Francis and had a pretty nice career. Under rated player.
Quite some time ago, I looked into Fran's "skill" position team mates throughout his entire career and was astounded that a QB playing on such terrible teams his first 12 years or so could end up with the records he did when he retired. I don't see a single HOF player on offense, other than a couple of lineman with the Vikings (Yary, Tinglehoff) Then I have to listen to the INSANE comments about Brady doing it "all by himself".................really?
I don't argue with the suggestion that Brady as the GOAT quarterback (NOT football player), what bothers me is the ridiculous assumption that he is the ONLY choice (by far).
If you look at Pro Football Reference's chart of "NFL Approximate Value (Weighted) Career Leaders", you will see six quarterbacks in the top 10. Any of these (including Fran) could have a reasonable case made for them as GOAT. Using this list we are leaving of Joe Montana and John Elway!
Unless you bring in championships, I just don't see any real advantage in the top three of Manning, Brady and Brees. For the record, I do give Brady some (but not all) credit for his play in big games.
By the way, Ken Anderson is rated just below Montana and Fouts, so he was pretty good.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
Dallasactuary says--
And in a team game like football, nobody can make an argument to refute my belief because no such argument can exist.
By that dumb logic I can say Mario Mendoza was the best baseball player of all time.
If anyone objects all I say is Team game! Team game!
Not sure if you read my last post before writing this, but my overall point is that in a team game like football, there is no such thing as an objective argument - leaving aside the QBs who come and go quickly because they objectively suck - that can separate one excellent QB from another. Objectively, they both have great stats, and they both led the league in stuff. But objectively, Brady had better teammates than Anderson, and by a mile and a half. How much does that affect the stats of Anderson relative to those of Brady? I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows. Subjectively, I watched Anderson play QB for years, and I've watched Brady play QB for years, and I think Anderson was a little bit better than Brady. That's it.
Now, you make an argument for Brady being the GOAT that doesn't rely at all on his teammates. Trick challenge; you can't do that because there is no possible way to do that. You tell me about his passing stats and you are, by definition, telling me also about his receivers and the linemen blocking for him, not to mention the quality of the Pats running game that kept more opponents close to the line rather than back in coverage. Make any argument you want that Brady was the GOAT, and I'll consider and respect your conclusion as much as I respect any other conclusion. Unless, that is, you bring up how many rings Brady has. That's an objectively terrible argument, and there's no way to treat it with respect.
Tom Brady is the GOAT hands down, and it's not even close. He pushes everyone on the Patriots to play their hardest. He will accept nothing less. He has the stats, the rings, and he's still going. Hell, he could play another ten years. He eats right, takes care of his body and health, and works hard. I'm pretty sure he will have more rings before he eventually retires at the age of 60. The GOAT hands down, and it's not even close.
the flaw in the "Jordan as GOAT or Lebron as GOAT" debate needs to be examined by viewing old footage of games from the 1950's until the three point line was established. at that time most of the action was centered in the key or within a few feet of it. the NBA today is fundamentally a different game which makes it difficult to compare the best players from "then" to the best players of "now" fairly.
the same could be said today of the NFL which is why I have a problem with Tom Brady as the GOAT when compared to players who played in the past. we can start with the Tuck Rule and move on to all the other rules in place today which are there specifically to protect QB's. it distorts what they do compared to what guys from the past did. just consider Dan Marino, he did the things Brady does without the help of those rules, just not quite as good when looking at TD's and Int's. the question becomes: What could Marino have done with today's rules? --- or --- What would Brady do with the rules of the 70's?? I have maintained for a while that Brady playing in the 1960's-1970's would have been much different, he more than likely would have been injured more and perhaps had a shorter career.
we will never know, that's what makes the comparisons hard. Tom Brady is without a doubt the best QB in this Century, that is the most I can say with reasonable certainty, but even that is being challenged by Russell Wilson. consider these numbers through eight seasons for Brady and an incomplete eighth season for Wilson:
Tom Brady, 8 seasons --- 197 TD's and 86 Int's.
Russell Wilson, 7 seasons and 8 games --- 213 TD's and 64 Int's.
even when we throw away Tom Brady's 2000 and 2008 seasons and substitute 2009 the stats aren't even really close, Russell Wilson is the better QB. I would say that if Wilson stays healthy and approaches 17-18 years playing at the level he has played at, that he will eclipse the stats of Tom Brady. additionally, I would say that Wilson would have done just fine in past eras.
at that point the only argument in Brady's favor will be Championships, but I don't think that's a good measuring stick.
I did read your posts, I’m not sure if you read mine but again I feel that in the GOAT conversation for NFL I adamantly believe that the QB position is the most important overall, call it Luck or whatever you want but I think it’s reasonable to discuss players in a certain category that have had the fortunes of great situations and took full advantage of it like the Elways’s, Montana’s & Brady’s of the world and then you chose who you believe is the best of the best. Had Montana played on the Bengals and Anderson the 49’ers maybe it would be Anderson vs Brady in most people’s minds rather than Montana vs a Brady, but it’s NOT how it worked out so I think it’s logical to discuss amongst the names we have to work with and I just don’t think Anderson belongs in the conversation regardless if it’s unfair or not. To sit there and dismiss Brady since you say he just had better teammates than Anderson is ridiculous in my opinion, but if that’s your way of thinking then it’s certainly your right.
I watched a lot of Anderson's games and thought he registered pretty high on the suck-meter. for Christ sake, in 17 years the guy didn't even have 200 TD's and was almost as good at throwing Int's as connecting in the endzone. his average year was something like 12/9 and he actually had several years where he threw more Int's than TD's. that's pretty bad.
As I said, when you start with the assumption that the GOAT has to have been a QB, and has to have been a QB on a great team, you are going to conclude that the GOAT is the QB on the greatest team. I just don't see the point of pretending any thought went into the conclusion when all you're doing is concluding what you assumed initially.
And I'm not "dismissing" Brady; I said he was as good a candidate as any for GOAT, but I'm also saying the fact that he has been surrounded by a great team for his entire career is not evidence of GOAT-hood one way or the other. If someone. someday, develops a system to objectively demonstrate who the NFL GOAT is, and you and I both accept that this system works, I will hardly be shocked if it turned out the GOAT was Brady. But I'll guarantee you that if such a system ever does exist, it will not count rings.
So help me, you'd think after all this time the depth of your ignorance would have ceased to amaze me. But this was an amazing post.
But I'll guarantee you that if such a system ever does exist, it will not count rings.
Agreed!
Please tell me about all these “Great” teams or players that he had surrounding him over 20 years though. I ask you to name a single WR that left the Patriots and had continued success with another QB. Outside of Gronk, and Moss for a short time he has not had a single HOF WR around him. And your wrong I have given it plenty of thought based on me watching him actually play over the past 20 years, I didn’t just come up with a conclusion all of a sudden that Brady is the Best because he has 6 rings or that he is my favorite player on my favorite team, sure I’m biased and have openly said that numerous times here that’s no secret. I’ve stated that for the first half of his career I thought Manning was better but damn you got a guy leading his team at a high level over the age of 40. I’ve watched his throws, his pocket presence, his ability to protect himself from getting hit harder than he needs too during sacks, I’ve seen him pinpoint his throws, I’ve seen him make adjustments during broken down plays, ect.. ect.. I’ve made my assumptions on a lot more than his championships
Bob Gibson was a decent pro basketball player. Made it to the globetrotters, but never the NBA.
I like this graphic from CBS
That is what your logic boils down to, that any
baseball player can be the GOAT simply because its a team game, same as your argument for football.
You've trapped yourself here and instead of admitting it you of course turn to insults.
I did forget to say checkmate. No response necessary, you're beat and you know it.
I wish you had said checkmate, that would have made it even funnier.
Had you understood it the thousand previous times I've posted it, you'd know that baseball is not a "team game", as I use the phrase. Obviously, the players are grouped into teams, but when a player is at bat there is nobody to block for him, nobody to harass the pitcher as he tries to throw it, and no other options as far as who the pitcher is going to throw to. The batter may be a member of a team, but when he is at the plate that makes no difference; he's on his own. Same thing for the pitcher, and the same thing for the outfielder or infielder at whom the ball is hit. Baseball has some team elements with double plays, or hit and runs, and a few other things, but it's about 99% an individual sport. And in individual sports, like baseball, allocating credit for runs scored and runs allowed - and therefore wins and losses - is relatively straightforward.
Not so - not so at all - in team sports like football. Troy Aikman can have a record of 0-11 with a crappy offensive line in front of him and no Emmitt Smith in the backfield, or he can be 14-13 with a crappy offensive line in front of him but with Emmitt Smith in the backfield, or he can be 56-19 and win 3 Super Bowls in five years with HOFers in every direction he looks. But he's Troy Aikman in whichever situation he may find himself. Put Tom Brady on the Cowboys in Aikman's rookie season and he gets sacked a whole lot, he leads the league in nothing, and he loses a ton more games than he wins. But he'd still be Tom Brady, no better or no worse than he is on the Patriots. Put Ted Williams on the Red Sox and he's arguably the best hitter of all time and he has no rings. Put him on the Yankees instead and he's exactly the same hitter, but he has handfuls of rings. Bradys stats change, dramatically, if you put him on a terrible team; Williams' stats (the one's the matter, not runs scored and RBI) stay pretty much the same no matter which team he's on. See the difference?
The day you, of all people, checkmate me I'll know I've got Alzheimer's or something even worse. If you think you have, you've completely misunderstood something very important and you should try to figure out what that is before saying another word. Free advice for you to ignore, but don't ever say I didn't try.
So we should ignore Drew Brees all time passing stats since he was forced to throw the football relentlessly seeings how his teams usually found themselves down by 2 TD’s going into the second half of the majority of his games, his passing yards are an illusion since they couldn’t just run the ball and control the clock because they needed to move the ball quick. That’s the only reason he has massive passing yards, we should ignore Jerry Rice ridiculous numbers since he played for so long? Emmett Smith rushing yards should not be considered HOF worthy since he played behind such a great line and if he played on the Texans when they first came into the league and had one of the worst lines ever? That’s sort of your view point with Brady, as I said fortune shines on some players right wrong or indifferent but the numbers are what they are. We can’t hold them against players due to “What ifs” that’s my point. Again please inform me of all these great players Brady had and when they left Foxboro flourished with other teams.
apparently nobody wants to acknowledge the Russell Wilson comparison. that's OK, I think we all will be forced to one day.
Wilson is off to a great start, not sure anyone can dispute that but let’s save the GOAT talk until he retires 🤷♂️
And it certainly won’t include Ken Anderson
He sure did throw some interceptions! So did everybody else. In 1974 and 1975 combined, Roger Staubach threw 28 TDs and 31 INT.
From 1972-82 Ken was in the top 6 in interception % eight times! In 1982 at/near the end of his effectiveness he led the league in completion % interception % and QB Rating, I don't see Brady ever doing that.
Back in the dark ages when I watched Joe Kapp and a host of others and then Fran Tarkenton QB the Vikings, a 50% completion rate was considered acceptable now it's 65%, the leading receiver averaged a little less than 20 yards per reception. now it's around 15, and interceptions were higher. You could lead the league with an interception rate at or around 3% now you have to be at 1.5%.
It becomes obvious (to me) that when the QBs threw the ball downfield further, they threw for a lower completion % and a higher interception %. Receivers had a higher YPC.
Now, the game is different and we look at the numbers differently, which makes a lot of the old timers look BAD, when they were not.
I ask you to name a single WR that left the Patriots and had continued success with another QB. Outside of Gronk, and Moss for a short time he has not had a single HOF WR around him.
Wes Welker and Julian Edelman were VERY good receivers Deion Branch was pretty good too. If you set the bar at HOF and say they had to have success with other QBs, that makes it tough.......well, impossible and sort of silly imo.
Other than Issac Curtis, Ken Anderson didn't have a lot to work with, Charlie Joiner for a couple of years.
Name ONE even decent receiver to play with Fran Tarkenton!
I won't even qualify it as being a HOFer who had success with a different QB. I will be shocked if you can even name one receiver who played with Fran before the very end of his career.
Name ONE even decent receiver to play with Fran Tarkenton!
John Gilliam.
As rings have lost their luster on this thread, I'll take Dan Marino.
Brady is a great system man -- and had to cheat a bit to achieve that.
Yes the game is different today. How soon until QBs wear a skirt? Let me know when someone plays ten years, every year in the Championship game. Let me know when a QB sets the record for most yards per pass attempt. Until then Otto Graham is looking down having a good laugh.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
let’s save the GOAT talk until he retires
stating the above about Russell Wilson is an interesting point, especially since you/us seem so willing to state it about the still-active Tom Brady.
to be sure, if you go re-read what I posted it was an argument that says Tom Brady is currently being challenged by Wilson as the best in this Century, no GOAT.
to the post-ACL Brady, what changed about the Patriots to improve him so much??
Well I thought it was fair to say that Wilson probably has another 10 years of Football in him if all things go in his favor. Brady has some serious seniority on him
You're not listening. I never said we should "ignore" anything. But, to take one of your examples, while we don't "ignore" Emmitt Smith's rushing stats, neither do we ignore the fact that Emmett Smith had one of the best O-lines in history in front of him. They both matter. There is a huge difference between having an open hole in front of you on virtually every play (the Smith model), and having to create one yourself (the Campbell model). I think Earl Campbell was a vastly better running back than Emmitt Smith; Smith was still great, but Campbell was the best I've ever seen. That is the point that I'm making - you simply can't evaluate any player in isolation, you have to take into account the contributions, or lack thereof, of all of the other players who contributed, or not, to his success. And in a team game like football, that isn't possible to do objectively.
As for Brady's teammates, I made those comments in the context of "counting rings". The Patriots have won all those Super Bowls because they have had great teams, year in and year out. You mention wide receivers, but I was referring to the entire team, from the kickers to the linebackers to the guards to the defensive ends. The Patriots win lots of games, and Super Bowls, because they consistently score more points than they allow their opponents to score. Brady is no doubt a large part of 45% of that, but the defense gets 45% of the credit, too, and 10% to the kickers. (I made up those numbers, but you get my point). So when you're allocating the 45% of the credit that the offense gets, are you allocating the entire 45% to Brady? Surely not, that would be ridiculous. How much of the 45% are you giving to Brady, then? The Pats have had terrific linemen consistently, and while WR and RB who were world-class have come and gone, the Pats other skill position players on offense have never been less than "good". Go through that exercise (hypothetically, as I said it's not actually possible) and you'll get some number for Brady that shows he gets significantly less than 45% of the credit for the Pats success. Go through that same exercise for a bad team with another great QB, say the Bengals in the 70's and 80's, and you'll get a number for that team's QB. My belief, purely subjectively, is that if doing this analysis were possible then Ken Anderson's number would be greater than Tom Brady's number.
The difference is (and it is big) Brady has already accomplished enough to be the GOAT. While Wilson is a great QB he has not.
I can appreciate your post, really I do. Your opinion is interesting with the percentages you put up and I say this subjectively as you stated, I really can’t wrap my head around it completely but I sort of understand. I know the Pats success is not entirely on Brady alone but I do hold him in a very high regard as you know. I’m happy to continue to believe he is the GOAT and that’s my bottom line. That being said I don’t believe I’m all homer in thinking this way but I will admit there is no clear cut way to differentiate the true method of deciding this between the large pool of NFL greats throughout all the decades. Putting it all together with stats, longevity, championships, ect.. Brady doesn’t have much else he can do to prove himself as the greatest in my opinion. I will agree with you about Earl Campbell for sure, I rate him right behind Barry Sanders
He is the one and only. Did you have to look him up?
No, I followed his career. He was one of the best for a four season stretch, 1972-75. Sammy White was another pretty damn good receiver. I still remember when he got his helmet knocked off in the Super Bowl against the Raiders.
Tarkenton had Chuck Foreman and a great defense, other than that I wouldn’t have been able to name any of hisxWR’s
Foreman was a fine receiver in his own right, as I recall.
Not taking into account the number of Super Bowl titles a player has won in determining his standing on the list of of all-time greats is preposterous. Of course rings count. It is the singular goal of every football player who ever puts on pads. The quality of opponents faced in the playoffs ramps up considerably over the regular season, the intensity level is exponentially higher, and brings out the best in players of all skill levels. Not counting championships as a criteria for greatness only gives solace to fans of also-ran teams, who fantasize about what-if, instead of accepting the reality of their team’s marginal existence.
Gilliam was a very good receiver even before he came to Minnesota. Sammy White played two full years with Fran 1976 and 1978 along with Ahmad Rashad. Fran didn't have much in the tank by 1978.
Foreman was a nice back for catching passes with one terrific year 73 receptions in 1975. He wasn't a great back though, his yards per carry was about 4 in his best years. Short career too.
That more or less lets the air out of your argument that Tarkenton had no one to throw the ball to. Perhaps that was true his first go-round with the Vikes, but certainly not the second time around.
It should be a consideration, but as DA pointed out, the QB is one of fifty players.
Rings should be more relevant in basketball where a Kobe or LeBron or Jordan can take over the offense and account for half the scoring in a given championship game.
Nice rant. Meaningless and overwrought, but full of spit and vinegar. If you, and others, would tweak this argument to say that "rings count" when identifying the greatest TEAMS of all time, then you'd be making an argument you could defend without all the emotion, and nobody would disagree with you.
As it stands, your argument either leads to the conclusion that every single player on Super Bowl winning teams is better than all the players on the "also-ran" teams, or that Brady, and Brady alone, gets lots of extra credit for the Pats wins because you just know, somehow, that he deserves it and all the other players don't. The first argument is just so stupid that I won't insult you by implying you believe it. The second argument - the one where great linemen, linebackers, running backs, tight ends, kickers, punters, corners, and safeties can just suck it - is the one you're really making. I don't know why, and I won't until you or someone explains why. Let's just say that until you do, what you're saying makes absolutely no sense to me.
P.S. When you say "not taking into account the number of Super Bowl titles a player has won" you're making a case that nobody needs to make. If Tom Brady ever takes the field and beats the NFC champion team all by himself, then he will clearly have earned the GOAT title not just for football but for all human achievement. But Brady didn't ever do that - the Patriots did that. And it was the Patriots that won those Super Bowls, not Tom Brady.
Definitely LESS.
Fran had ONE guy in Gilliam for 4 years. One running back at the end of his career and one+ wide out for a year and a half when he was 36 years old. First 11 years of his career he had squat. Tarkenton still ended his playing days the leader in every major passing statistic.
My gosh Brady had Welker, Moss, Gronk and Edelman all on the same squad! But it gets said Brady had no one to throw to. Do you guys actually believe the stuff you say?
I thought Packer fans were delusional.
Four nice years catching the ball.
He's not a household name, but Homer Jones was a fine receiver both before and during the years Tarkenton was on the Giants.
Dallas, you can make your points without turning into Moe Howard, really childish the way you throw out insults with such infantile intent. Of the Patriots six Super Bowl victories, there has been only one constant. The roster changes from year to year, some players last longer than others. But the one and only constant on all of those teams is Brady. Now obviously, there are those who are gonna argue that Belichick is the reason why the Pats have won so many titles, and that remains to be seen if he’ll win any more SB’s once Brady retires. But Brady’s sustained excellence, at an age when ALL other quarterbacks of his stature had long been retired, while he is still at the top of his game, leaves no doubt that he is the Greatest of All Time.
How this thread morphed into a discussion about the NFL GOAT is very odd.
Note to self: 45isodd's skin is paper thin.
I had to go back and read what I posted because I didn't recall insulting you, let along doing so with infantile intent. I guess calling your argument "meaningless and overwrought" is what you're referring to, and if that got your panties in a twist then I think I'll just ignore you unless you can tell me how to refer to future arguments that you make that are meaningless and overwrought in a way that you don't consider insulting.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that you’re autistic. I’ll be more mindful of your “gift” in the future.
There> @45isodd said:
It’s my fault, I made a quick mention of Brady then me and your boy Dallas got into a debate..
That seemed funny until I realized that it, too, didn't mean anything. But whatever it was you think it meant, please note that you don't need to be "mindful" of anything on my behalf; my skin is as thick as it can be. But if you feel the tears coming to your eyes again, just use your safe word ("buttercup") and I'll talk to the adults until you compose yourself.
My belief, purely subjectively, is that if doing this analysis were possible then Ken Anderson's number would be greater than Tom Brady's number.
Let’s take a hypothetical that’s impossible to measure, and apply it to two players who played in different eras, and I’ll say that Player A has a higher number than Player B, although it is impossible to quantify. Only a person who falls somewhere on the spectrum would even posit such a ridiculous statement.
Only a person on a different spectrum, if you know what I mean, would fail to grasp the point I was making. I don't think I can explain it with nothing but one syllable words, so I think you're out of luck. But I think Darin has some extra Cheetos if you're looking for something to do.
*buttercup is three syllables.
Yes, he was above average. Two years (1967 and 1968) with Fran he was a stud, only played 4/5 full years in the NFL though. At least 6 receivers played with Brady who were better. Gilliam was very good for 2+ years with Francis and had a pretty nice career. Under rated player.
Quite some time ago, I looked into Fran's "skill" position team mates throughout his entire career and was astounded that a QB playing on such terrible teams his first 12 years or so could end up with the records he did when he retired. I don't see a single HOF player on offense, other than a couple of lineman with the Vikings (Yary, Tinglehoff) Then I have to listen to the INSANE comments about Brady doing it "all by himself".................really?
I don't argue with the suggestion that Brady as the GOAT quarterback (NOT football player), what bothers me is the ridiculous assumption that he is the ONLY choice (by far).
If you look at Pro Football Reference's chart of "NFL Approximate Value (Weighted) Career Leaders", you will see six quarterbacks in the top 10. Any of these (including Fran) could have a reasonable case made for them as GOAT. Using this list we are leaving of Joe Montana and John Elway!
Unless you bring in championships, I just don't see any real advantage in the top three of Manning, Brady and Brees. For the record, I do give Brady some (but not all) credit for his play in big games.
By the way, Ken Anderson is rated just below Montana and Fouts, so he was pretty good.