I totally get that people are sick and tired of Brady, it goes beyond non New England & Tampa fans. It’s the rest of the NFL, Roger Goodell, Belichick, CU Sportstalk members, pretty much anyone and everyone wants him to retire.
@Brick said:
I had to look it up. There were 13 teams when the Browns entered the League. Certainly the Bucs had more teams to overcome. Certainly the talent wasn't spread as thin as it is today. Only the Conference winners played for the Championship. Today a wild card team can be the Champs. How many Championships did Brady win when his team was not the Conference Champion? In all honesty it is difficult to rate players from different eras. When the Browns entered the NFL they were expected to discover they couldn't play with the "Big boys." Surprise. They won the Championship their first year. BTW I have to admit my admiration for Graham is all the excitement about him, similar to the admiration Brady gets today. As far as my comparing the two because I saw both play, Graham retired when I just turned 8 years old.
I might be wrong, someone please confirm or correct, , but I think this would be the first Brady SB win or appearance with a team that didn't also win it's division.
@perkdog said:
I totally get that people are sick and tired of Brady, it goes beyond non New England & Tampa fans. It’s the rest of the NFL, Roger Goodell, Belichick, CU Sportstalk members, pretty much anyone and everyone wants him to retire.
Just for the record, I like Tom Brady, and I appreciate how great a QB he is. What I am sick and tired of are the people who say "Tom Brady has won 7 Super Bowls". Of the myriad things entirely out of Brady's control yesterday, just imagine how different that game would have looked had KC had their two starting tackles, KC's defense not committed countless stupid penalties, and Fournette and Jones not both averaged over 5 yards per carry. It's likely TB still wins, but it would have been a close game and not the snoozefest it actually was. It's not Brady's fault that Carson Wentz or Mike Kruczek or Uncle Rico could have been TB's QB and they still would have won, but it's true, and building a GOAT case on such a forgettable game is sort of an insult to Brady.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@perkdog said:
I totally get that people are sick and tired of Brady, it goes beyond non New England & Tampa fans. It’s the rest of the NFL, Roger Goodell, Belichick, CU Sportstalk members, pretty much anyone and everyone wants him to retire.
Just for the record, I like Tom Brady, and I appreciate how great a QB he is. What I am sick and tired of are the people who say "Tom Brady has won 7 Super Bowls". Of the myriad things entirely out of Brady's control yesterday, just imagine how different that game would have looked had KC had their two starting tackles, KC's defense not committed countless stupid penalties, and Fournette and Jones not both averaged over 5 yards per carry. It's likely TB still wins, but it would have been a close game and not the snoozefest it actually was. It's not Brady's fault that Carson Wentz or Mike Kruczek or Uncle Rico could have been TB's QB and they still would have won, but it's true, and building a GOAT case on such a forgettable game is sort of an insult to Brady.
Tampa Bay most likely isn't in the Super Bowl without Brady. Anyways, Tampa controlled both lines of scrimmages yesterday and made very few mistakes. They beat the living tar out of the Chiefs so point taken. Brady won the MVP but it could have easily have gone to Fournette, Gronk, White or Barrett.
Brady has won the Super Bowl for 7th time as a starting QB. That's just a fact. Nothing to apologize for there.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@perkdog said:
I totally get that people are sick and tired of Brady, it goes beyond non New England & Tampa fans. It’s the rest of the NFL, Roger Goodell, Belichick, CU Sportstalk members, pretty much anyone and everyone wants him to retire.
Just for the record, I like Tom Brady, and I appreciate how great a QB he is. What I am sick and tired of are the people who say "Tom Brady has won 7 Super Bowls". Of the myriad things entirely out of Brady's control yesterday, just imagine how different that game would have looked had KC had their two starting tackles, KC's defense not committed countless stupid penalties, and Fournette and Jones not both averaged over 5 yards per carry. It's likely TB still wins, but it would have been a close game and not the snoozefest it actually was. It's not Brady's fault that Carson Wentz or Mike Kruczek or Uncle Rico could have been TB's QB and they still would have won, but it's true, and building a GOAT case on such a forgettable game is sort of an insult to Brady.
I know your thought process and respect it as I have mentioned it. My post was 50/50 tongue in cheek. That being said, I like what was in Brady’s control and how he handled it. 21-29 pass completions doesn’t matter because it took the receiver to catch the ball or do we do 50/50 since Brady put the ball on target? Brady threw 3 TD’s and zero int. Not sure how you chock that up? He probably called a few plays after reading defenses and managed some players to make adjustments and didn’t make many mistakes doing that. I’m curious what you will give Brady credit for or do you think it was all out of his control and the refs coupled with KC’s poor play was the reason KC lost and it has nothing to do with Brady. Serious question
@perkdog said:
I totally get that people are sick and tired of Brady, it goes beyond non New England & Tampa fans. It’s the rest of the NFL, Roger Goodell, Belichick, CU Sportstalk members, pretty much anyone and everyone wants him to retire.
Just for the record, I like Tom Brady, and I appreciate how great a QB he is. What I am sick and tired of are the people who say "Tom Brady has won 7 Super Bowls".
Is part of it just a matter of semantics? Do you feel like it should be said 'Tom Brady was part of seven SB winning teams'.?
@perkdog said:
I totally get that people are sick and tired of Brady, it goes beyond non New England & Tampa fans. It’s the rest of the NFL, Roger Goodell, Belichick, CU Sportstalk members, pretty much anyone and everyone wants him to retire.
Just for the record, I like Tom Brady, and I appreciate how great a QB he is. What I am sick and tired of are the people who say "Tom Brady has won 7 Super Bowls". Of the myriad things entirely out of Brady's control yesterday, just imagine how different that game would have looked had KC had their two starting tackles, KC's defense not committed countless stupid penalties, and Fournette and Jones not both averaged over 5 yards per carry. It's likely TB still wins, but it would have been a close game and not the snoozefest it actually was. It's not Brady's fault that Carson Wentz or Mike Kruczek or Uncle Rico could have been TB's QB and they still would have won, but it's true, and building a GOAT case on such a forgettable game is sort of an insult to Brady.
Tampa Bay most likely isn't in the Super Bowl without Brady. Anyways, Tampa controlled both lines of scrimmages yesterday and made very few mistakes. They beat the living tar out of the Chiefs so point taken. Brady won the MVP but it could have easily have gone to Fournette, Gronk, White or Barrett.
Brady has won the Super Bowl for 7th time as a starting QB. That's just a fact. Nothing to apologize for there.
m
The QB often gets all the attention. When it is the QB, as in Brady, yes it can feel like he literally gets all of the attention. But we all know, and by we I mean sports fans, that it is a team sport. And these players know that too. Think about this.. One of Belichick's defensive game plans from when he was a DC in NY is in the HOF.
@perkdog said:
I totally get that people are sick and tired of Brady, it goes beyond non New England & Tampa fans. It’s the rest of the NFL, Roger Goodell, Belichick, CU Sportstalk members, pretty much anyone and everyone wants him to retire.
Just for the record, I like Tom Brady, and I appreciate how great a QB he is. What I am sick and tired of are the people who say "Tom Brady has won 7 Super Bowls". Of the myriad things entirely out of Brady's control yesterday, just imagine how different that game would have looked had KC had their two starting tackles, KC's defense not committed countless stupid penalties, and Fournette and Jones not both averaged over 5 yards per carry. It's likely TB still wins, but it would have been a close game and not the snoozefest it actually was. It's not Brady's fault that Carson Wentz or Mike Kruczek or Uncle Rico could have been TB's QB and they still would have won, but it's true, and building a GOAT case on such a forgettable game is sort of an insult to Brady.
I know your thought process and respect it as I have mentioned it. My post was 50/50 tongue in cheek. That being said, I like what was in Brady’s control and how he handled it. 21-29 pass completions doesn’t matter because it took the receiver to catch the ball or do we do 50/50 since Brady put the ball on target? Brady threw 3 TD’s and zero int. Not sure how you chock that up? He probably called a few plays after reading defenses and managed some players to make adjustments and didn’t make many mistakes doing that. I’m curious what you will give Brady credit for or do you think it was all out of his control and the refs coupled with KC’s poor play was the reason KC lost and it has nothing to do with Brady. Serious question
Brady was 16-20 and 3 TDs in the first half when the game was in doubt. He managed a great second half on offense. The Bucs bleed the Chiefs out in the second half pounding the rock.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@perkdog said:
I totally get that people are sick and tired of Brady, it goes beyond non New England & Tampa fans. It’s the rest of the NFL, Roger Goodell, Belichick, CU Sportstalk members, pretty much anyone and everyone wants him to retire.
Just for the record, I like Tom Brady, and I appreciate how great a QB he is. What I am sick and tired of are the people who say "Tom Brady has won 7 Super Bowls". Of the myriad things entirely out of Brady's control yesterday, just imagine how different that game would have looked had KC had their two starting tackles, KC's defense not committed countless stupid penalties, and Fournette and Jones not both averaged over 5 yards per carry. It's likely TB still wins, but it would have been a close game and not the snoozefest it actually was. It's not Brady's fault that Carson Wentz or Mike Kruczek or Uncle Rico could have been TB's QB and they still would have won, but it's true, and building a GOAT case on such a forgettable game is sort of an insult to Brady.
I know your thought process and respect it as I have mentioned it. My post was 50/50 tongue in cheek. That being said, I like what was in Brady’s control and how he handled it. 21-29 pass completions doesn’t matter because it took the receiver to catch the ball or do we do 50/50 since Brady put the ball on target? Brady threw 3 TD’s and zero int. Not sure how you chock that up? He probably called a few plays after reading defenses and managed some players to make adjustments and didn’t make many mistakes doing that. I’m curious what you will give Brady credit for or do you think it was all out of his control and the refs coupled with KC’s poor play was the reason KC lost and it has nothing to do with Brady. Serious question
Brady was 16-20 and 3 TDs in the first half when the game was in doubt. He managed a great second half on offense. The Bucs bleed the Chiefs out in the second half pounding the rock.
m
Yea I saw the game and say Brady had an outstanding game. I’m just literally trying to see where and to whom these guys want to deal out the credit for the win is all. I mean maybe a fan in the stand was yelling something rude to Mahomes and it got him off his game? So maybe said fan deserves 16% of the win share? It’s important to know .....
@perkdog said:
I totally get that people are sick and tired of Brady, it goes beyond non New England & Tampa fans. It’s the rest of the NFL, Roger Goodell, Belichick, CU Sportstalk members, pretty much anyone and everyone wants him to retire.
Just for the record, I like Tom Brady, and I appreciate how great a QB he is. What I am sick and tired of are the people who say "Tom Brady has won 7 Super Bowls". Of the myriad things entirely out of Brady's control yesterday, just imagine how different that game would have looked had KC had their two starting tackles, KC's defense not committed countless stupid penalties, and Fournette and Jones not both averaged over 5 yards per carry. It's likely TB still wins, but it would have been a close game and not the snoozefest it actually was. It's not Brady's fault that Carson Wentz or Mike Kruczek or Uncle Rico could have been TB's QB and they still would have won, but it's true, and building a GOAT case on such a forgettable game is sort of an insult to Brady.
I know your thought process and respect it as I have mentioned it. My post was 50/50 tongue in cheek. That being said, I like what was in Brady’s control and how he handled it. 21-29 pass completions doesn’t matter because it took the receiver to catch the ball or do we do 50/50 since Brady put the ball on target? Brady threw 3 TD’s and zero int. Not sure how you chock that up? He probably called a few plays after reading defenses and managed some players to make adjustments and didn’t make many mistakes doing that. I’m curious what you will give Brady credit for or do you think it was all out of his control and the refs coupled with KC’s poor play was the reason KC lost and it has nothing to do with Brady. Serious question
Brady was 16-20 and 3 TDs in the first half when the game was in doubt. He managed a great second half on offense. The Bucs bleed the Chiefs out in the second half pounding the rock.
m
Yea I saw the game and say Brady had an outstanding game. I’m just literally trying to see where and to whom these guys want to deal out the credit for the win is all. I mean maybe a fan in the stand was yelling something rude to Mahomes and it got him off his game? So maybe said fan deserves 16% of the win share? It’s important to know .....
Oh I know. Can you imagine the threads today if Brady and the Bucs had lost. Some would have called for his retirement. Some would be saying he lost as many Super Bowl as Jim Kelly discounting the six he won. Some would have been saying Mahomes would one day pass him. Some would be saying Montana was better
All Brady did yesterday was lead his team to his 7th Super Bowl victory. I think he's been MVP of 5 of them. Can that be remotely possible? I think Montana won 3. He has the second most I believe. Brady detractors keep moving the bar of what makes a GOAT the more he wins . The more Brady wins the more his detractors dig their heels in. It's actually interesting to watch. At this point there is nothing he can do to win over his critics. So why even try? Brady could care less.
At the end of the day Brady did what he usually does. He delivered in the clutch on the biggest stage. He's done it more times then anybody by a wide margin
His teams are 34-11 in the playoffs. Unreal
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Is part of it just a matter of semantics? Do you feel like it should be said 'Tom Brady was part of seven SB winning teams'.?
Yes, just as we would if substituted Hank Bauer and World Series for Tom Brady and Super Bowl. Both fine players, both helped their teams win, but neither one "won" a title, and to phrase it that way necessarily insults everyone else on their teams.
I know your thought process and respect it as I have mentioned it. My post was 50/50 tongue in cheek. That being said, I like what was in Brady’s control and how he handled it. 21-29 pass completions doesn’t matter because it took the receiver to catch the ball or do we do 50/50 since Brady put the ball on target? Brady threw 3 TD’s and zero int. Not sure how you chock that up? He probably called a few plays after reading defenses and managed some players to make adjustments and didn’t make many mistakes doing that. I’m curious what you will give Brady credit for or do you think it was all out of his control and the refs coupled with KC’s poor play was the reason KC lost and it has nothing to do with Brady. Serious question.
>
Brady played a fine game, as did everyone else on TB. If I'm assigning credit to the players on TB, I'm going to start from the fact that, on average, an NFL team scores 25 points per game. TB did a little better than average on offense, and a whole lot better than average on defense. The defense is going to get more credit than the offense; let's call it 60%, with 40% left for the offense. Allocate that in some reasonable way - in ANY reasonable way - and Fournette, Brady, and Gronk are going to get more than the average assigned to the players on offense. Giving Brady 50% more than average credit - and I think that's fair since he did have a good game - and he gets about 5% of the credit for TB's win.
Now I do also believe that Uncle Rico would also have won had he been the QB, but I could say the same of every single player on TB so that doesn't really change anything. Had Uncle Rico been the QB I would no doubt be assigning him 0% or 1% of the credit for what still have been a TB win; so I think 5% sounds pretty good. In any event if you want to give him more credit than that, I'd want to know what part of my logic you think is faulty.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Is part of it just a matter of semantics? Do you feel like it should be said 'Tom Brady was part of seven SB winning teams'.?
Yes, just as we would if substituted Hank Bauer and World Series for Tom Brady and Super Bowl. Both fine players, both helped their teams win, but neither one "won" a title, and to phrase it that way necessarily insults everyone else on their teams.
I know your thought process and respect it as I have mentioned it. My post was 50/50 tongue in cheek. That being said, I like what was in Brady’s control and how he handled it. 21-29 pass completions doesn’t matter because it took the receiver to catch the ball or do we do 50/50 since Brady put the ball on target? Brady threw 3 TD’s and zero int. Not sure how you chock that up? He probably called a few plays after reading defenses and managed some players to make adjustments and didn’t make many mistakes doing that. I’m curious what you will give Brady credit for or do you think it was all out of his control and the refs coupled with KC’s poor play was the reason KC lost and it has nothing to do with Brady. Serious question.
>
Brady played a fine game, as did everyone else on TB. If I'm assigning credit to the players on TB, I'm going to start from the fact that, on average, an NFL team scores 25 points per game. TB did a little better than average on offense, and a whole lot better than average on defense. The defense is going to get more credit than the offense; let's call it 60%, with 40% left for the offense. Allocate that in some reasonable way - in ANY reasonable way - and Fournette, Brady, and Gronk are going to get more than the average assigned to the players on offense. Giving Brady 50% more than average credit - and I think that's fair since he did have a good game - and he gets about 5% of the credit for TB's win.
Now I do also believe that Uncle Rico would also have won had he been the QB, but I could say the same of every single player on TB so that doesn't really change anything. Had Uncle Rico been the QB I would no doubt be assigning him 0% or 1% of the credit for what still have been a TB win; so I think 5% sounds pretty good. In any event if you want to give him more credit than that, I'd want to know what part of my logic you think is faulty.
I have heard the "because, you know, quarterbacks" argument many times. It remains unconvincing.
Some questions for you:
1- In an average game, how much credit do you assign to the offense and to the defense? This is an important gateway question, because if you don't answer 50%/50% (or something less than 50% each with the remainder to special teams) then you don't understand football and every other question on the topic of football becomes moot.
2- In this specific game, where KC scored 9 points, do you assign more or less than the average credit to the defense? Sort of a gateway - if your answer is "less" then let's just stop here so I can avoid the pain.
3- There were 11+ players who played on offense. I thought they all played very well; the 2 RB were outstanding, the OL (all 5 of them) were very good, Gronk was excellent, and the WR didn't screw up. I am hard pressed to imagine how the OL don't deserve about average credit (for me 40%/11, for you X%/11) but if you think the holes they opened for the RB and the pressure they kept off Brady weren't important then say so, and tell me what % credit you're giving them. I'm giving Brady, Gronk, and Fournette more than average credit - they were all excellent - and I think Jones deserves at least average credit (not a lot of rushes, but big ones).
So I'm going to allocate the 40% I'm giving to the offense as follows:
Fournette - 6%
Brady - 5%
Gronk-5%
Jones-4%
OL - 15% (3% each)
WR - 5% (they were all fine, but weren't called on to do much of anything)
If the % I've given Brady is "crazy low" then tell me whose credit I should take away and give to Brady. And if you think I've given too much credit to the OL, you should have watched the game yesterday. KC showed you what happens when the OL isn't on top of its game against a good opponent - it's ugly, and it costs you the game all by itself.
And yes, if you follow the math through to the end of the exercise, the players most responsible for winning the game are the ones on defense who get above average credit and therefore more than 6% credit. As it should be. If you watched the game.
As for the argument that TB doesn't make the SB without Brady, this is true or false depending on who the QB would have been in his absence. Brady is not better because the QB he replaced sucked. And the same "TB doesn't make the SB" argument applies to most of the starters on TB, not just Brady, depending on who would have played their position in their absence. It's not as strong an argument as the people who make it seem to think it is.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I have heard the "because, you know, quarterbacks" argument many times. It remains unconvincing.
Some questions for you:
1- In an average game, how much credit do you assign to the offense and to the defense? This is an important gateway question, because if you don't answer 50%/50% (or something less than 50% each with the remainder to special teams) then you don't understand football and every other question on the topic of football becomes moot.
2- In this specific game, where KC scored 9 points, do you assign more or less than the average credit to the defense? Sort of a gateway - if your answer is "less" then let's just stop here so I can avoid the pain.
3- There were 11+ players who played on offense. I thought they all played very well; the 2 RB were outstanding, the OL (all 5 of them) were very good, Gronk was excellent, and the WR didn't screw up. I am hard pressed to imagine how the OL don't deserve about average credit (for me 40%/11, for you X%/11) but if you think the holes they opened for the RB and the pressure they kept off Brady weren't important then say so, and tell me what % credit you're giving them. I'm giving Brady, Gronk, and Fournette more than average credit - they were all excellent - and I think Jones deserves at least average credit (not a lot of rushes, but big ones).
Well that does indeed change everything. Excellent analysis, and obviously I agree with your conclusion. I see you have been presented with the "because, you know, quarterbacks" argument quite a few times. Since it's not an actual argument, it can't be refuted and gets as frustrating as it is tiresome. I await the day, but definitely not while holding my breath, for someone on the "because, you know, quarterbacks" side to put some numbers to their argument. Because once you do that, the argument just evaporates into thin air.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
So 5% is your final answer, well I’m going to say that I think that is a great combination of bizarre, ridiculous, stupid, and comical. “Because , you know percentages tell the truth” Let’s dumb it down for you fellas with a few examples though. If an OL gets run over, the QB can throw the ball away, avoid the rush and release the ball fast to a check down RB, a TE or WR, or he can scramble out of harms way and rescan the field for a play. Sometimes this happens without him seeing anything but feeling the pressure but let’s not give a QB too much credit for that because really it’s top tier QB’s that excel In that. WR? They need to catch the ball thrown at him, there are 3 of them sometimes 4 or even 5 so if one of these WR’s decides to drop a perfectly thrown pass right into his chest it’s the QB’s fault on paper correct? If a defense lets up 35 points and the QB posts a perfect passer rating and loses the game 35-34 it’s his fault for the most part correct? The QB manages the offense, he decides plays by reading the defensive packages and makes adjustments when necessary, does any other player make as many decisions as the QB? Tell me I’m wrong with anything I posted here. Now take away all the Super Bowl rings and just look at the regular season stats, the playoff stats, longevity ( years played ) , durability. ( Games Started ) Winning seasons with him starting at QB, number of different coordinators he has had, and compare all that to any other QB and tell me how he stacks up to only being 5% important
@perkdog said:
So 5% is your final answer, well I’m going to say that I think that is a great combination of bizarre, ridiculous, stupid, and comical. “Because , you know percentages tell the truth” Let’s dumb it down for you fellas with a few examples though. If an OL gets run over, the QB can throw the ball away, avoid the rush and release the ball fast to a check down RB, a TE or WR, or he can scramble out of harms way and rescan the field for a play. Sometimes this happens without him seeing anything but feeling the pressure but let’s not give a QB too much credit for that because really it’s top tier QB’s that excel In that. WR? They need to catch the ball thrown at him, there are 3 of them sometimes 4 or even 5 so if one of these WR’s decides to drop a perfectly thrown pass right into his chest it’s the QB’s fault on paper correct? If a defense lets up 35 points and the QB posts a perfect passer rating and loses the game 35-34 it’s his fault for the most part correct? The QB manages the offense, he decides plays by reading the defensive packages and makes adjustments when necessary, does any other player make as many decisions as the QB? Tell me I’m wrong with anything I posted here. Now take away all the Super Bowl rings and just look at the regular season stats, the playoff stats, longevity ( years played ) , durability. ( Games Started ) Winning seasons with him starting at QB, number of different coordinators he has had, and compare all that to any other QB and tell me how he stacks up to only being 5% important
Paul,
Patrick Mahomes was missing two offensive tackles and suddenly went from Superman to Clark Kent in front of our very eyes. Many people - myself included - wondered aloud how much Brady had left after last year. Cant recall you specifically stating a clear opinion but you likely believed in Tom. Still. New team, significantly better supporting cast, champion once again. There’s a player on the defense (every defense) who gets a helmet to talk to the sideline and basically “QB” the defense - adjust coverages, slot players, and even change the play within the package in some cases.
I don’t know what maximum percentage value to approximate for a quarterback. I agree with the sentiment put forth by @LarkinCollector and @dallasactuary that quarterbacks get too much credit for success, though, and would put forth several championship teams that basically could have had (or did have) at QB and won - Jim McMahon, Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer immediate come to mind as does the Broncos Peyton led win. He deserves credit for the management but not the physical skill he displayed there.
Whatever it is doesn’t really matter so much as what is clearly the important thing:
Whatever it is, Tom Brady fills it completely and leaves no room for improvement in that fictional metric of approximate value to total team.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@perkdog said:
So 5% is your final answer, well I’m going to say that I think that is a great combination of bizarre, ridiculous, stupid, and comical. “Because , you know percentages tell the truth” Let’s dumb it down for you fellas with a few examples though. If an OL gets run over, the QB can throw the ball away, avoid the rush and release the ball fast to a check down RB, a TE or WR, or he can scramble out of harms way and rescan the field for a play. Sometimes this happens without him seeing anything but feeling the pressure but let’s not give a QB too much credit for that because really it’s top tier QB’s that excel In that. WR? They need to catch the ball thrown at him, there are 3 of them sometimes 4 or even 5 so if one of these WR’s decides to drop a perfectly thrown pass right into his chest it’s the QB’s fault on paper correct? If a defense lets up 35 points and the QB posts a perfect passer rating and loses the game 35-34 it’s his fault for the most part correct? The QB manages the offense, he decides plays by reading the defensive packages and makes adjustments when necessary, does any other player make as many decisions as the QB? Tell me I’m wrong with anything I posted here. Now take away all the Super Bowl rings and just look at the regular season stats, the playoff stats, longevity ( years played ) , durability. ( Games Started ) Winning seasons with him starting at QB, number of different coordinators he has had, and compare all that to any other QB and tell me how he stacks up to only being 5% important
Paul,
Patrick Mahomes was missing two offensive tackles and suddenly went from Superman to Clark Kent in front of our very eyes. Many people - myself included - wondered aloud how much Brady had left after last year. Cant recall you specifically stating a clear opinion but you likely believed in Tom. Still. New team, significantly better supporting cast, champion once again. There’s a player on the defense (every defense) who gets a helmet to talk to the sideline and basically “QB” the defense - adjust coverages, slot players, and even change the play within the package in some cases.
I don’t know what maximum percentage value to approximate for a quarterback. I agree with the sentiment put forth by @LarkinCollector and @dallasactuary that quarterbacks get too much credit for success, though, and would put forth several championship teams that basically could have had (or did have) at QB and won - Jim McMahon, Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer immediate come to mind as does the Broncos Peyton led win. He deserves credit for the management but not the physical skill he displayed there.
Whatever it is doesn’t really matter so much as what is clearly the important thing:
Whatever it is, Tom Brady fills it completely and leaves no room for improvement in that fictional metric of approximate value to total team.
Agreed the OL situation effected Mahomes but not every play was he under a direct siege. He threw the ball poorly a number of times and finished 26-49 with 2 picks. I thought he might be playing hurt honestly. I think the reality is you guys are looking for excuses to discount Brady while literally 99% of the sports world, not just the NFL mind you thinks Brady is the best and deserves the lions share of credit for the success of the teamed he has played on, not just Super Bowls but winning. It’s fine though, I have respect for you, @dallasactuary and @LarkinCollector and appreciate the input everywhere except when it comes to you guys not wanting to give Brady the same credit that 99% of the population agrees on. Like literally 99% of the sports WORLD disagrees with you guys. It’s amazing to me but like I said it’s fine, you guys certainly have a right to think Tom Brady should only get 5-7% of the credit for his entire 20 year career. I do laugh at you guys but like you I have a right to think you guys are flat out completely wrong in your opinions.
@perkdog said:
So 5% is your final answer, well I’m going to say that I think that is a great combination of bizarre, ridiculous, stupid, and comical. “Because , you know percentages tell the truth” Let’s dumb it down for you fellas with a few examples though. If an OL gets run over, the QB can throw the ball away, avoid the rush and release the ball fast to a check down RB, a TE or WR, or he can scramble out of harms way and rescan the field for a play. Sometimes this happens without him seeing anything but feeling the pressure but let’s not give a QB too much credit for that because really it’s top tier QB’s that excel In that. WR? They need to catch the ball thrown at him, there are 3 of them sometimes 4 or even 5 so if one of these WR’s decides to drop a perfectly thrown pass right into his chest it’s the QB’s fault on paper correct? If a defense lets up 35 points and the QB posts a perfect passer rating and loses the game 35-34 it’s his fault for the most part correct? The QB manages the offense, he decides plays by reading the defensive packages and makes adjustments when necessary, does any other player make as many decisions as the QB? Tell me I’m wrong with anything I posted here. Now take away all the Super Bowl rings and just look at the regular season stats, the playoff stats, longevity ( years played ) , durability. ( Games Started ) Winning seasons with him starting at QB, number of different coordinators he has had, and compare all that to any other QB and tell me how he stacks up to only being 5% important
Paul,
Patrick Mahomes was missing two offensive tackles and suddenly went from Superman to Clark Kent in front of our very eyes. Many people - myself included - wondered aloud how much Brady had left after last year. Cant recall you specifically stating a clear opinion but you likely believed in Tom. Still. New team, significantly better supporting cast, champion once again. There’s a player on the defense (every defense) who gets a helmet to talk to the sideline and basically “QB” the defense - adjust coverages, slot players, and even change the play within the package in some cases.
I don’t know what maximum percentage value to approximate for a quarterback. I agree with the sentiment put forth by @LarkinCollector and @dallasactuary that quarterbacks get too much credit for success, though, and would put forth several championship teams that basically could have had (or did have) at QB and won - Jim McMahon, Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer immediate come to mind as does the Broncos Peyton led win. He deserves credit for the management but not the physical skill he displayed there.
Whatever it is doesn’t really matter so much as what is clearly the important thing:
Whatever it is, Tom Brady fills it completely and leaves no room for improvement in that fictional metric of approximate value to total team.
Agreed the OL situation effected Mahomes but not every play was he under a direct siege. He threw the ball poorly a number of times and finished 26-49 with 2 picks. I thought he might be playing hurt honestly. I think the reality is you guys are looking for excuses to discount Brady while literally 99% of the sports world, not just the NFL mind you thinks Brady is the best and deserves the lions share of credit for the success of the teamed he has played on, not just Super Bowls but winning. It’s fine though, I have respect for you, @dallasactuary and @LarkinCollector and appreciate the input everywhere except when it comes to you guys not wanting to give Brady the same credit that 99% of the population agrees on. Like literally 99% of the sports WORLD disagrees with you guys. It’s amazing to me but like I said it’s fine, you guys certainly have a right to think Tom Brady should only get 5-7% of the credit for his entire 20 year career. I do laugh at you guys but like you I have a right to think you guys are flat out completely wrong in your opinions.
Again, I don’t think I’ve ever uttered a word that said ‘Tom Brady isn’t deserving of all his accolades.’
Even in the above, my point was that whether you allocate 5 or 50% to the quarterback position at large, Brady is getting you the entire 5 or 50%, whereas you get maybe 3.8 or 38 from a guy like Eli Manning.
Is that better stated in a more real way fake terms and metrics?
😳😉😂
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@perkdog said:
So 5% is your final answer, well I’m going to say that I think that is a great combination of bizarre, ridiculous, stupid, and comical. “Because , you know percentages tell the truth” Let’s dumb it down for you fellas with a few examples though. If an OL gets run over, the QB can throw the ball away, avoid the rush and release the ball fast to a check down RB, a TE or WR, or he can scramble out of harms way and rescan the field for a play. Sometimes this happens without him seeing anything but feeling the pressure but let’s not give a QB too much credit for that because really it’s top tier QB’s that excel In that. WR? They need to catch the ball thrown at him, there are 3 of them sometimes 4 or even 5 so if one of these WR’s decides to drop a perfectly thrown pass right into his chest it’s the QB’s fault on paper correct? If a defense lets up 35 points and the QB posts a perfect passer rating and loses the game 35-34 it’s his fault for the most part correct? The QB manages the offense, he decides plays by reading the defensive packages and makes adjustments when necessary, does any other player make as many decisions as the QB? Tell me I’m wrong with anything I posted here. Now take away all the Super Bowl rings and just look at the regular season stats, the playoff stats, longevity ( years played ) , durability. ( Games Started ) Winning seasons with him starting at QB, number of different coordinators he has had, and compare all that to any other QB and tell me how he stacks up to only being 5% important
Paul,
Patrick Mahomes was missing two offensive tackles and suddenly went from Superman to Clark Kent in front of our very eyes. Many people - myself included - wondered aloud how much Brady had left after last year. Cant recall you specifically stating a clear opinion but you likely believed in Tom. Still. New team, significantly better supporting cast, champion once again. There’s a player on the defense (every defense) who gets a helmet to talk to the sideline and basically “QB” the defense - adjust coverages, slot players, and even change the play within the package in some cases.
I don’t know what maximum percentage value to approximate for a quarterback. I agree with the sentiment put forth by @LarkinCollector and @dallasactuary that quarterbacks get too much credit for success, though, and would put forth several championship teams that basically could have had (or did have) at QB and won - Jim McMahon, Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer immediate come to mind as does the Broncos Peyton led win. He deserves credit for the management but not the physical skill he displayed there.
Whatever it is doesn’t really matter so much as what is clearly the important thing:
Whatever it is, Tom Brady fills it completely and leaves no room for improvement in that fictional metric of approximate value to total team.
Agreed the OL situation effected Mahomes but not every play was he under a direct siege. He threw the ball poorly a number of times and finished 26-49 with 2 picks. I thought he might be playing hurt honestly. I think the reality is you guys are looking for excuses to discount Brady while literally 99% of the sports world, not just the NFL mind you thinks Brady is the best and deserves the lions share of credit for the success of the teamed he has played on, not just Super Bowls but winning. It’s fine though, I have respect for you, @dallasactuary and @LarkinCollector and appreciate the input everywhere except when it comes to you guys not wanting to give Brady the same credit that 99% of the population agrees on. Like literally 99% of the sports WORLD disagrees with you guys. It’s amazing to me but like I said it’s fine, you guys certainly have a right to think Tom Brady should only get 5-7% of the credit for his entire 20 year career. I do laugh at you guys but like you I have a right to think you guys are flat out completely wrong in your opinions.
Again, I don’t think I’ve ever uttered a word that said ‘Tom Brady isn’t deserving of all his accolades.’
Even in the above, my point was that whether you allocate 5 or 50% to the quarterback position at large, Brady is getting you the entire 5 or 50%, whereas you get maybe 3.8 or 38 from a guy like Eli Manning.
Is that better stated in a more real way fake terms and metrics?
😳😉😂
It’s all good Tim. Btw In regards to your boy Eli, I give him way more than 5-7% of the credit for his 2007 Win, I’m not all about being a homer. 🍻👍👍
@perkdog said:
So 5% is your final answer, well I’m going to say that I think that is a great combination of bizarre, ridiculous, stupid, and comical. “Because , you know percentages tell the truth” Let’s dumb it down for you fellas with a few examples though. If an OL gets run over, the QB can throw the ball away, avoid the rush and release the ball fast to a check down RB, a TE or WR, or he can scramble out of harms way and rescan the field for a play. Sometimes this happens without him seeing anything but feeling the pressure but let’s not give a QB too much credit for that because really it’s top tier QB’s that excel In that. WR? They need to catch the ball thrown at him, there are 3 of them sometimes 4 or even 5 so if one of these WR’s decides to drop a perfectly thrown pass right into his chest it’s the QB’s fault on paper correct? If a defense lets up 35 points and the QB posts a perfect passer rating and loses the game 35-34 it’s his fault for the most part correct? The QB manages the offense, he decides plays by reading the defensive packages and makes adjustments when necessary, does any other player make as many decisions as the QB? Tell me I’m wrong with anything I posted here. Now take away all the Super Bowl rings and just look at the regular season stats, the playoff stats, longevity ( years played ) , durability. ( Games Started ) Winning seasons with him starting at QB, number of different coordinators he has had, and compare all that to any other QB and tell me how he stacks up to only being 5% important
Paul,
Patrick Mahomes was missing two offensive tackles and suddenly went from Superman to Clark Kent in front of our very eyes. Many people - myself included - wondered aloud how much Brady had left after last year. Cant recall you specifically stating a clear opinion but you likely believed in Tom. Still. New team, significantly better supporting cast, champion once again. There’s a player on the defense (every defense) who gets a helmet to talk to the sideline and basically “QB” the defense - adjust coverages, slot players, and even change the play within the package in some cases.
I don’t know what maximum percentage value to approximate for a quarterback. I agree with the sentiment put forth by @LarkinCollector and @dallasactuary that quarterbacks get too much credit for success, though, and would put forth several championship teams that basically could have had (or did have) at QB and won - Jim McMahon, Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer immediate come to mind as does the Broncos Peyton led win. He deserves credit for the management but not the physical skill he displayed there.
Whatever it is doesn’t really matter so much as what is clearly the important thing:
Whatever it is, Tom Brady fills it completely and leaves no room for improvement in that fictional metric of approximate value to total team.
Agreed the OL situation effected Mahomes but not every play was he under a direct siege. He threw the ball poorly a number of times and finished 26-49 with 2 picks. I thought he might be playing hurt honestly. I think the reality is you guys are looking for excuses to discount Brady while literally 99% of the sports world, not just the NFL mind you thinks Brady is the best and deserves the lions share of credit for the success of the teamed he has played on, not just Super Bowls but winning. It’s fine though, I have respect for you, @dallasactuary and @LarkinCollector and appreciate the input everywhere except when it comes to you guys not wanting to give Brady the same credit that 99% of the population agrees on. Like literally 99% of the sports WORLD disagrees with you guys. It’s amazing to me but like I said it’s fine, you guys certainly have a right to think Tom Brady should only get 5-7% of the credit for his entire 20 year career. I do laugh at you guys but like you I have a right to think you guys are flat out completely wrong in your opinions.
Again, I don’t think I’ve ever uttered a word that said ‘Tom Brady isn’t deserving of all his accolades.’
Even in the above, my point was that whether you allocate 5 or 50% to the quarterback position at large, Brady is getting you the entire 5 or 50%, whereas you get maybe 3.8 or 38 from a guy like Eli Manning.
Is that better stated in a more real way fake terms and metrics?
😳😉😂
It’s all good Tim. Btw In regards to your boy Eli, I give him way more than 5-7% of the credit for his 2007 Win, I’m not all about being a homer. 🍻👍👍
Oh, that was regular season, Paul.
Eli Manning went into the phone booth before the 2007 and 2011 playoffs.
Am I am being a total homer?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
all of this percentage talk is so insane, I don't even know where to start.
I think most people would agree that QB is the most important position in football. I have heard it said from the network talking heads that it is the most important position in all of sports. I would tend to agree. I think the point of QB being most valuable can be seen quite clearly in the instance of a teams starting QB being lost for a season. most of the time, that teams realistic shot at SB contention is over. unless your backup is HOF level like Steve Young, its time to wait for next season. this does not jive with an all time great QB like a brady or manning etc being worth 5-7% of a teams value.
a lot of us are baseball fans and numbers play such a huge role in that sport. it goes against my normal philosophy of baseball stathead, but there is more to football than percentages. there is a visceral part of the game where leadership is crucial. perhaps because there has to be such a high level of cohesiveness on a FB team for it to be successful. In the modern game, where passing is so important, having a high level QB is crucial. The titans are a good team, but running the ball with Henry will not take them to a SB like it would have with run heavy teams of the past like the 70's dolphins.
having an elite level QB is the big prerequisite of being a SB contender. look at this years playoffs for proof. the final 4 teams, the final 2. all had big time QBs. now, can you put a number on it? I don't know. i really don't think so. I do know, at least anecdotally, that this years bucs team sure does heap a lot of this years success onto having a HOF level QB. players and head coach both agree. no, I cant put a percentage on it, but there are such things as intangibles. it seems A HOF level QB brings those to the table.
look, if a big time QB were only worth 5% of the credit, why do GMs value them so highly? why are they by far the highest paid players? why do only teams with high level QBs make it deep into the playoffs?
Fact 1 Super Bowl wins as starting QB - Brady, 7, no one else with >4 (Montana, Bradshaw)
Fact 2 Super Bowl wins as starting QB with different teams, Brady, any others? Just Peyton Manning and he only won 2 SB's total
Fact 3 Hard to imagine TB in the SB w/o Brady - he makes everyone around him better, this is the mark of a great leader. In the locker room, in meetings, in the huddle, in the lineup and during the play, everyone has a more positive vibe, believes and plays with more confidence bc Brady is there and on the team. Hence Brady deserves most or all of the credit for this win. This is what leaders do, they raise everyone into being their best.
Fact 4 SH is not a NE, TB, or Brady fan. Never will be, but he has my respect as GOAT.
@spacehayduke said:
Fact 1 Super Bowl wins as starting QB - Brady, 7, no one else with >4 (Montana, Bradshaw)
Fact 2 Super Bowl wins as starting QB with different teams, Brady, any others? Just Peyton Manning and he only won 2 SB's total
Fact 3 Hard to imagine TB in the SB w/o Brady - he makes everyone around him better, this is the mark of a great leader. In the locker room, in meetings, in the huddle, in the lineup and during the play, everyone has a more positive vibe, believes and plays with more confidence bc Brady is there and on the team. Hence Brady deserves most or all of the credit for this win. This is what leaders do, they raise everyone into being their best.
Fact 4 SH is not a NE, TB, or Brady fan. Never will be, but he has my respect as GOAT.
Best, SH
I personally agree with what you say here, but get ready to be blasted by those who say playoff leadership is non-quantifiable. and because it is non-quantifiable, it does not exist and therefore, it is not something a HOF level QB could ever possess. remember, Montana and Brady are only worth 5% of each team win...
look, if a big time QB were only worth 5% of the credit, why do GMs value them so highly? why are they by far the highest paid players? why do only teams with high level QBs make it deep into the playoffs?
I like the whole post and I just wanted to answer these last 3 questions specifically?
1) Because it is the most public position on the team.
2) Supply and demand - Tom Brady is in a class by himself. That said, the skills necessary to play the position are possessed by lots of men (height, strength, etc) but there’s often more expected of the quarterback that has nothing to do with playing football games that becomes part of the challenge. Ryan Leaf and Johnny Football were very gifted guys athletically and no other assessment is needed. What they lacked wasn’t athletic in anyway.
3) That’s not entirely true. Again, if you could hand the ball to Walter Payton and throw the ball down field even a little you could have been Jim McMahon (exaggeration alert).
Here’s another elephant in the room that needs addressing?
Not every franchise has the same commitment to winning. Sustained excellence is difficult and if the stadium is full and the fans like the team that is good enough for more owners than most people realize. See Chicago Cubs 1919-2016. See NY Giants 1991-2003, 2012-Present.
In that vain, I think Tom Brady very much got the sense that Kraft and Bellichek were satisfied with their accomplishments and he was not. Their clocks are not ticking the way his is - Bill can die or retire at this point but he’s almost certainly never being fired. Father Time does not afford athletes the same luxury as coaches and owners. As such, he looked around the league and said ‘Where can I go win right now?’ and made it happen.
But I’ll say this, if Philip Rivers beat him there maybe he gets that ring, also? Not knocking Tom Brady with that statement, just that he would have also been the massive upgrade to Jameis Winston that this team needed. He’d never won one and maybe never would - granted - but that team was truly a QB away. They got the best one playing the game today but maybe - just maybe - they didn’t need someone that good.
Again, Tom Brady is fabulous, handsome and wealthy and a great quarterback. He deserves the most money in the league and is easily the winningest athlete of the 21st century thus far; perhaps tied with Tiger Woods but with the significantly better overall image.
PS - And Eli Manning punked him. Twice. 😁😁😁
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium I appreciate and respect you taking the time to write that as you did. You hit on a lot of important dynamics to this discussion. In my opinion the Rivers example, if looked at through the lens what he did with the Colts, is solid evidence for the existence of something extra with Brady.
@thisistheshow said: @1951WheatiesPremium I appreciate and respect you taking the time to write that as you did. You hit on a lot of important dynamics to this discussion. In my opinion the Rivers example, if looked at through the lens what he did with the Colts, is solid evidence for the existence of something extra with Brady.
Or maybe that both guys are great QBs?
Both took 7-9 teams to 11-5 and the playoffs. Heck, give Rivers AB and Fournette this year in addition? Maybe Indy is title town. Who knows...
...what we do know is Brady got ring #7 this past Sunday.
We’re talking about what he’s worth to a team and he’s at Disney World.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
There is a (probably) unintentional mangling of what I said running throughout the last several posts. In a game between two evenly matched opponents it is often the case that the QB gets more, sometimes a lot more, than 5% of the credit for a win. Did any of you watch this Super Bowl? This was not a game between two evenly matched teams and Brady was called upon to do as little as he has ever needed to do to win. I state with 100% certainty that TB would have won that game with literally any NFL starting QB playing instead of Brady. Throw out the red herrings about how TB doesn't make it to the Super Bowl without Brady and just think about what actually happened in this one game - a game that KC would have lost if the Jets offense played instead of the Bucs. Again, it's not Brady's fault that he wasn't a factor in the game, it was just the circumstances he was handed. If you want to argue that my 5% is too low and should be 6% or 7%, go right ahead. If you want to get him into double digits, I ask again, did you watch the game? TB needed 10 points for the win; I don't think they really ever needed to throw a forward pass to accomplish that.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
There is a (probably) unintentional mangling of what I said running throughout the last several posts. In a game between two evenly matched opponents it is often the case that the QB gets more, sometimes a lot more, than 5% of the credit for a win. Did any of you watch this Super Bowl? This was not a game between two evenly matched teams and Brady was called upon to do as little as he has ever needed to do to win. I state with 100% certainty that TB would have won that game with literally any NFL starting QB playing instead of Brady. Throw out the red herrings about how TB doesn't make it to the Super Bowl without Brady and just think about what actually happened in this one game - a game that KC would have lost if the Jets offense played instead of the Bucs. Again, it's not Brady's fault that he wasn't a factor in the game, it was just the circumstances he was handed. If you want to argue that my 5% is too low and should be 6% or 7%, go right ahead. If you want to get him into double digits, I ask again, did you watch the game? TB needed 10 points for the win; I don't think they really ever needed to throw a forward pass to accomplish that.
I’m not even suggesting that we are talking about this past Super Bowl or any of the other 9 that Brady has been in. I clearly stated I’m talking about his 20 year career and questioning a few of you guys who say his value is at 5% or MAYBE 7% of the reason behind the success of said 20+ career.
@dallasactuary said:
There is a (probably) unintentional mangling of what I said running throughout the last several posts. In a game between two evenly matched opponents it is often the case that the QB gets more, sometimes a lot more, than 5% of the credit for a win. Did any of you watch this Super Bowl? This was not a game between two evenly matched teams and Brady was called upon to do as little as he has ever needed to do to win. I state with 100% certainty that TB would have won that game with literally any NFL starting QB playing instead of Brady. Throw out the red herrings about how TB doesn't make it to the Super Bowl without Brady and just think about what actually happened in this one game - a game that KC would have lost if the Jets offense played instead of the Bucs. Again, it's not Brady's fault that he wasn't a factor in the game, it was just the circumstances he was handed. If you want to argue that my 5% is too low and should be 6% or 7%, go right ahead. If you want to get him into double digits, I ask again, did you watch the game? TB needed 10 points for the win; I don't think they really ever needed to throw a forward pass to accomplish that.
So now Brady wasn't a factor in the game?!?!?!?! what in the world are you talking about!!! he threw 3 TD in the first half and completed 70% of his passes with no turnovers.
you cant see the forest for the trees. Andy Daulton would not have won the super bowl. neither would Cam Newton or Mitchell Trubisky.
you cant talk about just one game. it is about a body of work. of course TB wouldn't have made it to the SB without Brady. His coach and every teammate i heard interviewed said the same. Dont you think those guys have a better understanding of their own locker room than you??
If one player owns or will own most important regular-season individual records and postseason individual records AND has been the most instrumental player in progressing deep into the playoffs and winning 7 super bowls, how is that player not considered the greatest of all time??
@dallasactuary said:
There is a (probably) unintentional mangling of what I said running throughout the last several posts. In a game between two evenly matched opponents it is often the case that the QB gets more, sometimes a lot more, than 5% of the credit for a win. Did any of you watch this Super Bowl? This was not a game between two evenly matched teams and Brady was called upon to do as little as he has ever needed to do to win. I state with 100% certainty that TB would have won that game with literally any NFL starting QB playing instead of Brady. Throw out the red herrings about how TB doesn't make it to the Super Bowl without Brady and just think about what actually happened in this one game - a game that KC would have lost if the Jets offense played instead of the Bucs. Again, it's not Brady's fault that he wasn't a factor in the game, it was just the circumstances he was handed. If you want to argue that my 5% is too low and should be 6% or 7%, go right ahead. If you want to get him into double digits, I ask again, did you watch the game? TB needed 10 points for the win; I don't think they really ever needed to throw a forward pass to accomplish that.
So now Brady wasn't a factor in the game?!?!?!?! what in the world are you talking about!!! he threw 3 TD in the first half and completed 70% of his passes with no turnovers.
you cant see the forest for the trees. Andy Daulton would not have won the super bowl. neither would Cam Newton or Mitchell Trubisky.
you cant talk about just one game. it is about a body of work. of course TB wouldn't have made it to the SB without Brady. His coach and every teammate i heard interviewed said the same. Dont you think those guys have a better understanding of their own locker room than you??
If one player owns or will own most important regular-season individual records and postseason individual records AND has been the most instrumental player in progressing deep into the playoffs and winning 7 super bowls, how is that player not considered the greatest of all time??
I’m not even suggesting that we are talking about this past Super Bowl or any of the other 9 that Brady has been in. I clearly stated I’m talking about his 20 year career and questioning a few of you guys who say his value is at 5% or MAYBE 7% of the reason behind the success of said 20+ career.
I agree that 5% is too low for his career, but I had to round up to get there for this Super Bowl. I am going to disregard the so-stupid-it-makes-my-ears-bleed argument that Brady makes the defense and special teams better and just focus on what he does affect - the offense. And I'm going to allocate 6% of a team's success to the special teams, leaving 47% for the offense and 47% for the defense. If we give Brady 7% of the credit (a figure I think has to be pretty close to correct), then the other 10 starters/positions on offense get an average of 4%. That makes Brady close to twice as valuable as everyone else. For some unknown reason that is taken as some gross insult to He Who Has Seven Rings, but it's not and it's not intended to be. If you give Brady some ridiculous level of credit like 25%, then that leaves 2% for everyone else, including Gronk and the other HOFers who have played with over the years, and Brady is more than 12 times as valuable as anyone else. I don't know if you believe that or not, but it doesn't matter - it's absurd.
I’m not even suggesting that we are talking about this past Super Bowl or any of the other 9 that Brady has been in. I clearly stated I’m talking about his 20 year career and questioning a few of you guys who say his value is at 5% or MAYBE 7% of the reason behind the success of said 20+ career.
I agree that 5% is too low for his career, but I had to round up to get there for this Super Bowl. I am going to disregard the so-stupid-it-makes-my-ears-bleed argument that Brady makes the defense and special teams better and just focus on what he does affect - the offense. And I'm going to allocate 6% of a team's success to the special teams, leaving 47% for the offense and 47% for the defense. If we give Brady 7% of the credit (a figure I think has to be pretty close to correct), then the other 10 starters/positions on offense get an average of 4%. That makes Brady close to twice as valuable as everyone else. For some unknown reason that is taken as some gross insult to He Who Has Seven Rings, but it's not and it's not intended to be. If you give Brady some ridiculous level of credit like 25%, then that leaves 2% for everyone else, including Gronk and the other HOFers who have played with over the years, and Brady is more than 12 times as valuable as anyone else. I don't know if you believe that or not, but it doesn't matter - it's absurd.
I don't know if anyone else agrees, but it seems to me that Brady's contributions to each game, the teams, the seasons, the careers, the wins, etc are in a way greater than the whole, much more than the sum of it's parts. That is why he is the goat.
I’m not even suggesting that we are talking about this past Super Bowl or any of the other 9 that Brady has been in. I clearly stated I’m talking about his 20 year career and questioning a few of you guys who say his value is at 5% or MAYBE 7% of the reason behind the success of said 20+ career.
I agree that 5% is too low for his career, but I had to round up to get there for this Super Bowl. I am going to disregard the so-stupid-it-makes-my-ears-bleed argument that Brady makes the defense and special teams better and just focus on what he does affect - the offense. And I'm going to allocate 6% of a team's success to the special teams, leaving 47% for the offense and 47% for the defense. If we give Brady 7% of the credit (a figure I think has to be pretty close to correct), then the other 10 starters/positions on offense get an average of 4%. That makes Brady close to twice as valuable as everyone else. For some unknown reason that is taken as some gross insult to He Who Has Seven Rings, but it's not and it's not intended to be. If you give Brady some ridiculous level of credit like 25%, then that leaves 2% for everyone else, including Gronk and the other HOFers who have played with over the years, and Brady is more than 12 times as valuable as anyone else. I don't know if you believe that or not, but it doesn't matter - it's absurd.
I’m not even suggesting that we are talking about this past Super Bowl or any of the other 9 that Brady has been in. I clearly stated I’m talking about his 20 year career and questioning a few of you guys who say his value is at 5% or MAYBE 7% of the reason behind the success of said 20+ career.
I agree that 5% is too low for his career, but I had to round up to get there for this Super Bowl. I am going to disregard the so-stupid-it-makes-my-ears-bleed argument that Brady makes the defense and special teams better and just focus on what he does affect - the offense. And I'm going to allocate 6% of a team's success to the special teams, leaving 47% for the offense and 47% for the defense. If we give Brady 7% of the credit (a figure I think has to be pretty close to correct), then the other 10 starters/positions on offense get an average of 4%. That makes Brady close to twice as valuable as everyone else. For some unknown reason that is taken as some gross insult to He Who Has Seven Rings, but it's not and it's not intended to be. If you give Brady some ridiculous level of credit like 25%, then that leaves 2% for everyone else, including Gronk and the other HOFers who have played with over the years, and Brady is more than 12 times as valuable as anyone else. I don't know if you believe that or not, but it doesn't matter - it's absurd.
The thing your missing though is the variables. You give special teams 6% of the teams success? Ok so say a QB goes 10-30 with 110 yards and 3 interceptions and the KR and PR each run one back all the way for a TD and the kicker kicks 2 60 yard FG’s to win 20-19 I’m giving special teams a hell of a lot more than 6% of the teams success. Anyways besides Gronk and Moss for a short time what other HOF’ers are you thinking of that “He played with over the years” ? Speaking of Gronk do you believe he would have had the success he has had if he had Josh Rosen or Trent Dilfer throwing to him?
I’m not even suggesting that we are talking about this past Super Bowl or any of the other 9 that Brady has been in. I clearly stated I’m talking about his 20 year career and questioning a few of you guys who say his value is at 5% or MAYBE 7% of the reason behind the success of said 20+ career.
I agree that 5% is too low for his career, but I had to round up to get there for this Super Bowl. I am going to disregard the so-stupid-it-makes-my-ears-bleed argument that Brady makes the defense and special teams better and just focus on what he does affect - the offense. And I'm going to allocate 6% of a team's success to the special teams, leaving 47% for the offense and 47% for the defense. If we give Brady 7% of the credit (a figure I think has to be pretty close to correct), then the other 10 starters/positions on offense get an average of 4%. That makes Brady close to twice as valuable as everyone else. For some unknown reason that is taken as some gross insult to He Who Has Seven Rings, but it's not and it's not intended to be. If you give Brady some ridiculous level of credit like 25%, then that leaves 2% for everyone else, including Gronk and the other HOFers who have played with over the years, and Brady is more than 12 times as valuable as anyone else. I don't know if you believe that or not, but it doesn't matter - it's absurd.
The thing your missing though is the variables. You give special teams 6% of the teams success? Ok so say a QB goes 10-30 with 110 yards and 3 interceptions and the KR and PR each run one back all the way for a TD and the kicker kicks 2 60 yard FG’s to win 20-19 I’m giving special teams a hell of a lot more than 6% of the teams success. Anyways besides Gronk and Moss for a short time what other HOF’ers are you thinking of that “He played with over the years” ? Speaking of Gronk do you believe he would have had the success he has had if he had Josh Rosen or Trent Dilfer throwing to him?
Comments
Brady fans please go ahead and use part, or all of my previous post in current and/or future threads.
Others just don't get it.
Nope. Case is not closed. Those who think Sammy Baugh is the GOAT don't realize Graham had to play against much superior opponents.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Ralph, I hope you realize I was being sarcastic. I am so sick of the Brady sycophants I can't stand it.
Yes. I recognize good sarcasm when I see it. And I hope you realize I speak with a good bit of "tongue in cheek."
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Yes, you are OK in my book!
And I'm sure that means a LOT!
;-)
I totally get that people are sick and tired of Brady, it goes beyond non New England & Tampa fans. It’s the rest of the NFL, Roger Goodell, Belichick, CU Sportstalk members, pretty much anyone and everyone wants him to retire.
I might be wrong, someone please confirm or correct, , but I think this would be the first Brady SB win or appearance with a team that didn't also win it's division.
Just for the record, I like Tom Brady, and I appreciate how great a QB he is. What I am sick and tired of are the people who say "Tom Brady has won 7 Super Bowls". Of the myriad things entirely out of Brady's control yesterday, just imagine how different that game would have looked had KC had their two starting tackles, KC's defense not committed countless stupid penalties, and Fournette and Jones not both averaged over 5 yards per carry. It's likely TB still wins, but it would have been a close game and not the snoozefest it actually was. It's not Brady's fault that Carson Wentz or Mike Kruczek or Uncle Rico could have been TB's QB and they still would have won, but it's true, and building a GOAT case on such a forgettable game is sort of an insult to Brady.
Tampa Bay most likely isn't in the Super Bowl without Brady. Anyways, Tampa controlled both lines of scrimmages yesterday and made very few mistakes. They beat the living tar out of the Chiefs so point taken. Brady won the MVP but it could have easily have gone to Fournette, Gronk, White or Barrett.
Brady has won the Super Bowl for 7th time as a starting QB. That's just a fact. Nothing to apologize for there.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I know your thought process and respect it as I have mentioned it. My post was 50/50 tongue in cheek. That being said, I like what was in Brady’s control and how he handled it. 21-29 pass completions doesn’t matter because it took the receiver to catch the ball or do we do 50/50 since Brady put the ball on target? Brady threw 3 TD’s and zero int. Not sure how you chock that up? He probably called a few plays after reading defenses and managed some players to make adjustments and didn’t make many mistakes doing that. I’m curious what you will give Brady credit for or do you think it was all out of his control and the refs coupled with KC’s poor play was the reason KC lost and it has nothing to do with Brady. Serious question
Is part of it just a matter of semantics? Do you feel like it should be said 'Tom Brady was part of seven SB winning teams'.?
The QB often gets all the attention. When it is the QB, as in Brady, yes it can feel like he literally gets all of the attention. But we all know, and by we I mean sports fans, that it is a team sport. And these players know that too. Think about this.. One of Belichick's defensive game plans from when he was a DC in NY is in the HOF.
Brady was 16-20 and 3 TDs in the first half when the game was in doubt. He managed a great second half on offense. The Bucs bleed the Chiefs out in the second half pounding the rock.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Yea I saw the game and say Brady had an outstanding game. I’m just literally trying to see where and to whom these guys want to deal out the credit for the win is all. I mean maybe a fan in the stand was yelling something rude to Mahomes and it got him off his game? So maybe said fan deserves 16% of the win share? It’s important to know .....
Well by that logic we cant credit coaches with einning either unless we rope the waterboys in also
Oh I know. Can you imagine the threads today if Brady and the Bucs had lost. Some would have called for his retirement. Some would be saying he lost as many Super Bowl as Jim Kelly discounting the six he won. Some would have been saying Mahomes would one day pass him. Some would be saying Montana was better
All Brady did yesterday was lead his team to his 7th Super Bowl victory. I think he's been MVP of 5 of them. Can that be remotely possible? I think Montana won 3. He has the second most I believe. Brady detractors keep moving the bar of what makes a GOAT the more he wins . The more Brady wins the more his detractors dig their heels in. It's actually interesting to watch. At this point there is nothing he can do to win over his critics. So why even try? Brady could care less.
At the end of the day Brady did what he usually does. He delivered in the clutch on the biggest stage. He's done it more times then anybody by a wide margin
His teams are 34-11 in the playoffs. Unreal
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Yes, just as we would if substituted Hank Bauer and World Series for Tom Brady and Super Bowl. Both fine players, both helped their teams win, but neither one "won" a title, and to phrase it that way necessarily insults everyone else on their teams.
>
Brady played a fine game, as did everyone else on TB. If I'm assigning credit to the players on TB, I'm going to start from the fact that, on average, an NFL team scores 25 points per game. TB did a little better than average on offense, and a whole lot better than average on defense. The defense is going to get more credit than the offense; let's call it 60%, with 40% left for the offense. Allocate that in some reasonable way - in ANY reasonable way - and Fournette, Brady, and Gronk are going to get more than the average assigned to the players on offense. Giving Brady 50% more than average credit - and I think that's fair since he did have a good game - and he gets about 5% of the credit for TB's win.
Now I do also believe that Uncle Rico would also have won had he been the QB, but I could say the same of every single player on TB so that doesn't really change anything. Had Uncle Rico been the QB I would no doubt be assigning him 0% or 1% of the credit for what still have been a TB win; so I think 5% sounds pretty good. In any event if you want to give him more credit than that, I'd want to know what part of my logic you think is faulty.
danger will robinson
clutch does not compute
That is a crazy low number to give a QB.
I have heard the "because, you know, quarterbacks" argument many times. It remains unconvincing.
Some questions for you:
1- In an average game, how much credit do you assign to the offense and to the defense? This is an important gateway question, because if you don't answer 50%/50% (or something less than 50% each with the remainder to special teams) then you don't understand football and every other question on the topic of football becomes moot.
2- In this specific game, where KC scored 9 points, do you assign more or less than the average credit to the defense? Sort of a gateway - if your answer is "less" then let's just stop here so I can avoid the pain.
3- There were 11+ players who played on offense. I thought they all played very well; the 2 RB were outstanding, the OL (all 5 of them) were very good, Gronk was excellent, and the WR didn't screw up. I am hard pressed to imagine how the OL don't deserve about average credit (for me 40%/11, for you X%/11) but if you think the holes they opened for the RB and the pressure they kept off Brady weren't important then say so, and tell me what % credit you're giving them. I'm giving Brady, Gronk, and Fournette more than average credit - they were all excellent - and I think Jones deserves at least average credit (not a lot of rushes, but big ones).
So I'm going to allocate the 40% I'm giving to the offense as follows:
Fournette - 6%
Brady - 5%
Gronk-5%
Jones-4%
OL - 15% (3% each)
WR - 5% (they were all fine, but weren't called on to do much of anything)
If the % I've given Brady is "crazy low" then tell me whose credit I should take away and give to Brady. And if you think I've given too much credit to the OL, you should have watched the game yesterday. KC showed you what happens when the OL isn't on top of its game against a good opponent - it's ugly, and it costs you the game all by itself.
And yes, if you follow the math through to the end of the exercise, the players most responsible for winning the game are the ones on defense who get above average credit and therefore more than 6% credit. As it should be. If you watched the game.
As for the argument that TB doesn't make the SB without Brady, this is true or false depending on who the QB would have been in his absence. Brady is not better because the QB he replaced sucked. And the same "TB doesn't make the SB" argument applies to most of the starters on TB, not just Brady, depending on who would have played their position in their absence. It's not as strong an argument as the people who make it seem to think it is.
Color me a touch facetious in my previous reply, based on the feedback received in the thread below this for a quite similar breakdown ... https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12836892/#Comment_12836892
Well that does indeed change everything. Excellent analysis, and obviously I agree with your conclusion. I see you have been presented with the "because, you know, quarterbacks" argument quite a few times. Since it's not an actual argument, it can't be refuted and gets as frustrating as it is tiresome. I await the day, but definitely not while holding my breath, for someone on the "because, you know, quarterbacks" side to put some numbers to their argument. Because once you do that, the argument just evaporates into thin air.
This is a good read. It doesn’t fit the Dallas and Larkin narrative of the “Because, you know Quarterbacks” but to the rest of us it makes a pretty good read. https://hbr.org/amp/2019/04/whos-the-most-important-member-of-an-nfl-franchise?__twitter_impression=true
So 5% is your final answer, well I’m going to say that I think that is a great combination of bizarre, ridiculous, stupid, and comical. “Because , you know percentages tell the truth” Let’s dumb it down for you fellas with a few examples though. If an OL gets run over, the QB can throw the ball away, avoid the rush and release the ball fast to a check down RB, a TE or WR, or he can scramble out of harms way and rescan the field for a play. Sometimes this happens without him seeing anything but feeling the pressure but let’s not give a QB too much credit for that because really it’s top tier QB’s that excel In that. WR? They need to catch the ball thrown at him, there are 3 of them sometimes 4 or even 5 so if one of these WR’s decides to drop a perfectly thrown pass right into his chest it’s the QB’s fault on paper correct? If a defense lets up 35 points and the QB posts a perfect passer rating and loses the game 35-34 it’s his fault for the most part correct? The QB manages the offense, he decides plays by reading the defensive packages and makes adjustments when necessary, does any other player make as many decisions as the QB? Tell me I’m wrong with anything I posted here. Now take away all the Super Bowl rings and just look at the regular season stats, the playoff stats, longevity ( years played ) , durability. ( Games Started ) Winning seasons with him starting at QB, number of different coordinators he has had, and compare all that to any other QB and tell me how he stacks up to only being 5% important
Paul,
Patrick Mahomes was missing two offensive tackles and suddenly went from Superman to Clark Kent in front of our very eyes. Many people - myself included - wondered aloud how much Brady had left after last year. Cant recall you specifically stating a clear opinion but you likely believed in Tom. Still. New team, significantly better supporting cast, champion once again. There’s a player on the defense (every defense) who gets a helmet to talk to the sideline and basically “QB” the defense - adjust coverages, slot players, and even change the play within the package in some cases.
I don’t know what maximum percentage value to approximate for a quarterback. I agree with the sentiment put forth by @LarkinCollector and @dallasactuary that quarterbacks get too much credit for success, though, and would put forth several championship teams that basically could have had (or did have) at QB and won - Jim McMahon, Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer immediate come to mind as does the Broncos Peyton led win. He deserves credit for the management but not the physical skill he displayed there.
Whatever it is doesn’t really matter so much as what is clearly the important thing:
Whatever it is, Tom Brady fills it completely and leaves no room for improvement in that fictional metric of approximate value to total team.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Agreed the OL situation effected Mahomes but not every play was he under a direct siege. He threw the ball poorly a number of times and finished 26-49 with 2 picks. I thought he might be playing hurt honestly. I think the reality is you guys are looking for excuses to discount Brady while literally 99% of the sports world, not just the NFL mind you thinks Brady is the best and deserves the lions share of credit for the success of the teamed he has played on, not just Super Bowls but winning. It’s fine though, I have respect for you, @dallasactuary and @LarkinCollector and appreciate the input everywhere except when it comes to you guys not wanting to give Brady the same credit that 99% of the population agrees on. Like literally 99% of the sports WORLD disagrees with you guys. It’s amazing to me but like I said it’s fine, you guys certainly have a right to think Tom Brady should only get 5-7% of the credit for his entire 20 year career. I do laugh at you guys but like you I have a right to think you guys are flat out completely wrong in your opinions.
Again, I don’t think I’ve ever uttered a word that said ‘Tom Brady isn’t deserving of all his accolades.’
Even in the above, my point was that whether you allocate 5 or 50% to the quarterback position at large, Brady is getting you the entire 5 or 50%, whereas you get maybe 3.8 or 38 from a guy like Eli Manning.
Is that better stated in a more real way fake terms and metrics?
😳😉😂
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
It’s all good Tim. Btw In regards to your boy Eli, I give him way more than 5-7% of the credit for his 2007 Win, I’m not all about being a homer. 🍻👍👍
Oh, that was regular season, Paul.
Eli Manning went into the phone booth before the 2007 and 2011 playoffs.
Am I am being a total homer?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
all of this percentage talk is so insane, I don't even know where to start.
I think most people would agree that QB is the most important position in football. I have heard it said from the network talking heads that it is the most important position in all of sports. I would tend to agree. I think the point of QB being most valuable can be seen quite clearly in the instance of a teams starting QB being lost for a season. most of the time, that teams realistic shot at SB contention is over. unless your backup is HOF level like Steve Young, its time to wait for next season. this does not jive with an all time great QB like a brady or manning etc being worth 5-7% of a teams value.
a lot of us are baseball fans and numbers play such a huge role in that sport. it goes against my normal philosophy of baseball stathead, but there is more to football than percentages. there is a visceral part of the game where leadership is crucial. perhaps because there has to be such a high level of cohesiveness on a FB team for it to be successful. In the modern game, where passing is so important, having a high level QB is crucial. The titans are a good team, but running the ball with Henry will not take them to a SB like it would have with run heavy teams of the past like the 70's dolphins.
having an elite level QB is the big prerequisite of being a SB contender. look at this years playoffs for proof. the final 4 teams, the final 2. all had big time QBs. now, can you put a number on it? I don't know. i really don't think so. I do know, at least anecdotally, that this years bucs team sure does heap a lot of this years success onto having a HOF level QB. players and head coach both agree. no, I cant put a percentage on it, but there are such things as intangibles. it seems A HOF level QB brings those to the table.
look, if a big time QB were only worth 5% of the credit, why do GMs value them so highly? why are they by far the highest paid players? why do only teams with high level QBs make it deep into the playoffs?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Fact 1 Super Bowl wins as starting QB - Brady, 7, no one else with >4 (Montana, Bradshaw)
Fact 2 Super Bowl wins as starting QB with different teams, Brady, any others? Just Peyton Manning and he only won 2 SB's total
Fact 3 Hard to imagine TB in the SB w/o Brady - he makes everyone around him better, this is the mark of a great leader. In the locker room, in meetings, in the huddle, in the lineup and during the play, everyone has a more positive vibe, believes and plays with more confidence bc Brady is there and on the team. Hence Brady deserves most or all of the credit for this win. This is what leaders do, they raise everyone into being their best.
Fact 4 SH is not a NE, TB, or Brady fan. Never will be, but he has my respect as GOAT.
Best, SH
5% ?? the teams that write the paychecks dont seem to agree with the forum stat interns on
I personally agree with what you say here, but get ready to be blasted by those who say playoff leadership is non-quantifiable. and because it is non-quantifiable, it does not exist and therefore, it is not something a HOF level QB could ever possess. remember, Montana and Brady are only worth 5% of each team win...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
“Because, you know, Quarterbacks”. 🙄
I like the whole post and I just wanted to answer these last 3 questions specifically?
1) Because it is the most public position on the team.
2) Supply and demand - Tom Brady is in a class by himself. That said, the skills necessary to play the position are possessed by lots of men (height, strength, etc) but there’s often more expected of the quarterback that has nothing to do with playing football games that becomes part of the challenge. Ryan Leaf and Johnny Football were very gifted guys athletically and no other assessment is needed. What they lacked wasn’t athletic in anyway.
3) That’s not entirely true. Again, if you could hand the ball to Walter Payton and throw the ball down field even a little you could have been Jim McMahon (exaggeration alert).
Here’s another elephant in the room that needs addressing?
Not every franchise has the same commitment to winning. Sustained excellence is difficult and if the stadium is full and the fans like the team that is good enough for more owners than most people realize. See Chicago Cubs 1919-2016. See NY Giants 1991-2003, 2012-Present.
In that vain, I think Tom Brady very much got the sense that Kraft and Bellichek were satisfied with their accomplishments and he was not. Their clocks are not ticking the way his is - Bill can die or retire at this point but he’s almost certainly never being fired. Father Time does not afford athletes the same luxury as coaches and owners. As such, he looked around the league and said ‘Where can I go win right now?’ and made it happen.
But I’ll say this, if Philip Rivers beat him there maybe he gets that ring, also? Not knocking Tom Brady with that statement, just that he would have also been the massive upgrade to Jameis Winston that this team needed. He’d never won one and maybe never would - granted - but that team was truly a QB away. They got the best one playing the game today but maybe - just maybe - they didn’t need someone that good.
Again, Tom Brady is fabulous, handsome and wealthy and a great quarterback. He deserves the most money in the league and is easily the winningest athlete of the 21st century thus far; perhaps tied with Tiger Woods but with the significantly better overall image.
PS - And Eli Manning punked him. Twice. 😁😁😁
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@1951WheatiesPremium I appreciate and respect you taking the time to write that as you did. You hit on a lot of important dynamics to this discussion. In my opinion the Rivers example, if looked at through the lens what he did with the Colts, is solid evidence for the existence of something extra with Brady.
Or maybe that both guys are great QBs?
Both took 7-9 teams to 11-5 and the playoffs. Heck, give Rivers AB and Fournette this year in addition? Maybe Indy is title town. Who knows...
...what we do know is Brady got ring #7 this past Sunday.
We’re talking about what he’s worth to a team and he’s at Disney World.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
There is a (probably) unintentional mangling of what I said running throughout the last several posts. In a game between two evenly matched opponents it is often the case that the QB gets more, sometimes a lot more, than 5% of the credit for a win. Did any of you watch this Super Bowl? This was not a game between two evenly matched teams and Brady was called upon to do as little as he has ever needed to do to win. I state with 100% certainty that TB would have won that game with literally any NFL starting QB playing instead of Brady. Throw out the red herrings about how TB doesn't make it to the Super Bowl without Brady and just think about what actually happened in this one game - a game that KC would have lost if the Jets offense played instead of the Bucs. Again, it's not Brady's fault that he wasn't a factor in the game, it was just the circumstances he was handed. If you want to argue that my 5% is too low and should be 6% or 7%, go right ahead. If you want to get him into double digits, I ask again, did you watch the game? TB needed 10 points for the win; I don't think they really ever needed to throw a forward pass to accomplish that.
I’m not even suggesting that we are talking about this past Super Bowl or any of the other 9 that Brady has been in. I clearly stated I’m talking about his 20 year career and questioning a few of you guys who say his value is at 5% or MAYBE 7% of the reason behind the success of said 20+ career.
So now Brady wasn't a factor in the game?!?!?!?! what in the world are you talking about!!! he threw 3 TD in the first half and completed 70% of his passes with no turnovers.
you cant see the forest for the trees. Andy Daulton would not have won the super bowl. neither would Cam Newton or Mitchell Trubisky.
you cant talk about just one game. it is about a body of work. of course TB wouldn't have made it to the SB without Brady. His coach and every teammate i heard interviewed said the same. Dont you think those guys have a better understanding of their own locker room than you??
If one player owns or will own most important regular-season individual records and postseason individual records AND has been the most instrumental player in progressing deep into the playoffs and winning 7 super bowls, how is that player not considered the greatest of all time??
you have jumped the shark on this one dallas
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
“Because, you know, Quarterbacks” 🙄😂
I agree that 5% is too low for his career, but I had to round up to get there for this Super Bowl. I am going to disregard the so-stupid-it-makes-my-ears-bleed argument that Brady makes the defense and special teams better and just focus on what he does affect - the offense. And I'm going to allocate 6% of a team's success to the special teams, leaving 47% for the offense and 47% for the defense. If we give Brady 7% of the credit (a figure I think has to be pretty close to correct), then the other 10 starters/positions on offense get an average of 4%. That makes Brady close to twice as valuable as everyone else. For some unknown reason that is taken as some gross insult to He Who Has Seven Rings, but it's not and it's not intended to be. If you give Brady some ridiculous level of credit like 25%, then that leaves 2% for everyone else, including Gronk and the other HOFers who have played with over the years, and Brady is more than 12 times as valuable as anyone else. I don't know if you believe that or not, but it doesn't matter - it's absurd.
And yet, I am.
I thought you were the guy who was always talking about sample size??? 60 minutes isn't much of a sample now is it??
let me rephrase. you can talk about just one game, but just about any assertion you make will be incorrect when using it to measure career worth.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I don't know if anyone else agrees, but it seems to me that Brady's contributions to each game, the teams, the seasons, the careers, the wins, etc are in a way greater than the whole, much more than the sum of it's parts. That is why he is the goat.
sample size is dallas 30 year career of adapting his dungeons and dragons formula to the local fantasy football league.
He runs 5th level wookie crossbowmen at all skill positions
The thing your missing though is the variables. You give special teams 6% of the teams success? Ok so say a QB goes 10-30 with 110 yards and 3 interceptions and the KR and PR each run one back all the way for a TD and the kicker kicks 2 60 yard FG’s to win 20-19 I’m giving special teams a hell of a lot more than 6% of the teams success. Anyways besides Gronk and Moss for a short time what other HOF’ers are you thinking of that “He played with over the years” ? Speaking of Gronk do you believe he would have had the success he has had if he had Josh Rosen or Trent Dilfer throwing to him?
fantastic points.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Image © 2021 Mastubatory Rehash Industries
are you guys truly quarreling over credit allocation to an exact percent
and did someone really mention Trubisky again
i would love to know what stage of sleep i'm in right now
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
This one ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OyBtMPqpNY