Options
Tom Brady myth believers.....thats what happens....
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
Tom Brady myth believers, thats what happens when you don't have all the variables in your favor, and that is why YOU DO NOT JUDGE INDIVIDUALS BASED ON A TEAM'S SUCCES AND TITLES!!!!
There are just waaay too many important variables that play such a large role in determining a teams chances of winninga title, that only a fool would assess the ability and value of an individual based on the ENTIRE TEAMS OUTCOME.
Variable #1. No QB has ever won a Super Bowl with a bottom half ranked defense, and Tom Brady is no different! Had Brady never had the luxury of having a top ranked defense, then he wouldn't have a single Super Bowl title, just like all the other QB's before him who weren't so fortunate. Then he wouldn't be referred to as a "WINNER," supposedly far better than what is properly used to evaluate an individual player, and supposing to posses some mythical ability to 'win', more than what his real ability dictates. Yet that is what I constantly hear about him, and it makes me want to puke. I know that people do this because they need heroes, and they want to believe in these mythical qualities, they always have and always will continue to do so. Quick, tell Atlas he can rest now if his shoulders are getting tired!
Variables #2+. A TEAM wins a title, PERIOD! If key components are missing, a title won't occur, and it is stupid to assign one guy as a GOD when comparing him to another who doesn't have the same level of key components. Everyone knows the components, a good offesnive line(and teammates all around), home field advantage, a bye week, referee calls(what if that call was different in the Oak vs. Patriots game in that run??), special teams(what if Vinatierie had pulled a Scott Norwood in that run?), and finally LUCK/CHANCE/CIRCUMSTANCE...everything has to fall into place AT THE RIGHT TIME!!
Now that the variables have changed for Brady, is he now a choker? No, he is an excellent QB now, just like before. The only difference is the variables changed. Or I geuss he forgot how to 'win' like Aikman, Favre, and Montana did when the variables changed from being very favorable for championships to NOT, and when NOT was happening they didn't win either! Yeah, a myth believer will say, "but he took advantage of the variables when he had them! Well HE IS AN OUTSTANDING QB, AND HE IS PART OF THE VARIABLE, just don't judge him as better than a QB who is just as good or better than him because the other guy didn't have as strong as variables and never won!! Kind of like the morons who use to argue Aikman was better than Marino. Remember the other variables of things falling into place at the right time etc...Some guys only get one or two cracks at it when the variables are close to being lined up, but another variable can take control to prevent it from happening. Marino had one crack, but he just happened to run into a better team in the Super Bowl and the other team played their best. That is a variable. Marino never had the variables lined up again(NAMELY DEFENSE!!!).
Or you could be John Elway and have it work in reverse. You can be labled a choker all those years, and than poof, all the variables line up and Elway is all of a sudden better, though he wasn't better, he just had things fall into place. Thanks offesnive line, and Terrell Davis. Had Elway got hurt before those two late Super Bowls he would have unfairly been labled a choker. Peyton Manning has his first real crack at it this year. He is at his best, home field advantage, good defense(not the best but good). Maybe things will work out, or maybe they won't.
My all time pukiest sports person to be called a winner is Derek Jeter. I got so sick of hearing, "He knows how to win." That is such a stupid statement. I geuss Jeter has forgotten on how to "WILL A TEAM TO WINNING" like I use to hear and throw up to all the time. You think the pitching staffs have a little to do with it?? No, not in the minds of the Jeter backers, it was him! They never won without him, he was one of the best players, and he had some good post season series(they ignored his bad ones). So he must know how to win!! Yeah, kind of like last night when I got drunk on Scotch and Water, Vodka and water, and Tequila and water, and then threw up all day today. I geuss I'm going to have to stay away from that water!!
Just so people don't think I am taking advantage of the moment, well I am while it is fresh in everybody's mind, but I stated on here last year that Brady won't win a Bowl when his defense falls into the lower half. And if he did manage to win a few Super Bowls with an annually ranked 20th defense, then I would blow him too, though this time he would merit it(In terms of the "winner" garbage).
How long before somebody posts that I am saying Brady is not that good?? Tom Brady is in the top two QB's in the league. Not because of the titles, but because of what he does in all of his games, and without super receivers either. It is a very dangerous combination to have a top two QB and the best defense in the league these past few years. Add good coaching staff, special teams, home field advantage throughout, and some things fall your way (the Oak call) and you have a recipe for title success. Dan Marino would have no problem getting Super Bowls with all the variables falling the same direction. Tom Brady would have zero super bowls just like Marino when he doesn't have the variables, and this is year one of that.
Save your title judging for Martina Navratilova. It doesn't belong in team sports!
There are just waaay too many important variables that play such a large role in determining a teams chances of winninga title, that only a fool would assess the ability and value of an individual based on the ENTIRE TEAMS OUTCOME.
Variable #1. No QB has ever won a Super Bowl with a bottom half ranked defense, and Tom Brady is no different! Had Brady never had the luxury of having a top ranked defense, then he wouldn't have a single Super Bowl title, just like all the other QB's before him who weren't so fortunate. Then he wouldn't be referred to as a "WINNER," supposedly far better than what is properly used to evaluate an individual player, and supposing to posses some mythical ability to 'win', more than what his real ability dictates. Yet that is what I constantly hear about him, and it makes me want to puke. I know that people do this because they need heroes, and they want to believe in these mythical qualities, they always have and always will continue to do so. Quick, tell Atlas he can rest now if his shoulders are getting tired!
Variables #2+. A TEAM wins a title, PERIOD! If key components are missing, a title won't occur, and it is stupid to assign one guy as a GOD when comparing him to another who doesn't have the same level of key components. Everyone knows the components, a good offesnive line(and teammates all around), home field advantage, a bye week, referee calls(what if that call was different in the Oak vs. Patriots game in that run??), special teams(what if Vinatierie had pulled a Scott Norwood in that run?), and finally LUCK/CHANCE/CIRCUMSTANCE...everything has to fall into place AT THE RIGHT TIME!!
Now that the variables have changed for Brady, is he now a choker? No, he is an excellent QB now, just like before. The only difference is the variables changed. Or I geuss he forgot how to 'win' like Aikman, Favre, and Montana did when the variables changed from being very favorable for championships to NOT, and when NOT was happening they didn't win either! Yeah, a myth believer will say, "but he took advantage of the variables when he had them! Well HE IS AN OUTSTANDING QB, AND HE IS PART OF THE VARIABLE, just don't judge him as better than a QB who is just as good or better than him because the other guy didn't have as strong as variables and never won!! Kind of like the morons who use to argue Aikman was better than Marino. Remember the other variables of things falling into place at the right time etc...Some guys only get one or two cracks at it when the variables are close to being lined up, but another variable can take control to prevent it from happening. Marino had one crack, but he just happened to run into a better team in the Super Bowl and the other team played their best. That is a variable. Marino never had the variables lined up again(NAMELY DEFENSE!!!).
Or you could be John Elway and have it work in reverse. You can be labled a choker all those years, and than poof, all the variables line up and Elway is all of a sudden better, though he wasn't better, he just had things fall into place. Thanks offesnive line, and Terrell Davis. Had Elway got hurt before those two late Super Bowls he would have unfairly been labled a choker. Peyton Manning has his first real crack at it this year. He is at his best, home field advantage, good defense(not the best but good). Maybe things will work out, or maybe they won't.
My all time pukiest sports person to be called a winner is Derek Jeter. I got so sick of hearing, "He knows how to win." That is such a stupid statement. I geuss Jeter has forgotten on how to "WILL A TEAM TO WINNING" like I use to hear and throw up to all the time. You think the pitching staffs have a little to do with it?? No, not in the minds of the Jeter backers, it was him! They never won without him, he was one of the best players, and he had some good post season series(they ignored his bad ones). So he must know how to win!! Yeah, kind of like last night when I got drunk on Scotch and Water, Vodka and water, and Tequila and water, and then threw up all day today. I geuss I'm going to have to stay away from that water!!
Just so people don't think I am taking advantage of the moment, well I am while it is fresh in everybody's mind, but I stated on here last year that Brady won't win a Bowl when his defense falls into the lower half. And if he did manage to win a few Super Bowls with an annually ranked 20th defense, then I would blow him too, though this time he would merit it(In terms of the "winner" garbage).
How long before somebody posts that I am saying Brady is not that good?? Tom Brady is in the top two QB's in the league. Not because of the titles, but because of what he does in all of his games, and without super receivers either. It is a very dangerous combination to have a top two QB and the best defense in the league these past few years. Add good coaching staff, special teams, home field advantage throughout, and some things fall your way (the Oak call) and you have a recipe for title success. Dan Marino would have no problem getting Super Bowls with all the variables falling the same direction. Tom Brady would have zero super bowls just like Marino when he doesn't have the variables, and this is year one of that.
Save your title judging for Martina Navratilova. It doesn't belong in team sports!
0
Comments
brady is a hOF qb!
dont understand where your post is trying to go??
Had his kick and punt returners remembered how to hold on to the ball, he'd be in the AFC championship game against Indy, and this post wouldn't be a thought.
Winning 3 of 4 super bowls is an amazing feat, and yes, the QB bears the most responsibility (both good and bad) because he's touching the ball on every offensive play. He has no standout receivers. Until last year, no standout RB. At all the so-called 'skill' positions, he was surrounded by players who good, are nothing extraordinary.
The defense wasn't the reason the patriots lost tonight, and neither was Brady.
Brady is among the best QBs to ever play the game...numbers be damned. And he's only 27 years old.
My quote:
<< <i>How long before somebody posts that I am saying Brady is not that good?? Tom Brady is in the top two QB's in the league. Not because of the titles, but because of what he does in all of his games, and without super receivers either. It is a very dangerous combination to have a top two QB and the best defense in the league these past few years. Add good coaching staff, special teams, home field advantage throughout, and some things fall your way (the Oak call) and you have a recipe for title success. Dan Marino would have no problem getting Super Bowls with all the variables falling the same direction. Tom Brady would have zero super bowls just like Marino when he doesn't have the variables, and this is year one of that.
Save your title judging for Martina Navratilova. It doesn't belong in team sports! >>
All those things you listed are EXACTLY some of the variables I am referring to. I will give you the benefit of the doubt in that it was a long post and you didnt' read it all. But if you did and you don't know where I am going, then I can't help you.
<< <i>Brady would be in the hall of fame if he retired today.
Had his kick and punt returners remembered how to hold on to the ball, he'd be in the AFC championship game against Indy, and this post wouldn't be a thought.
The defense wasn't the reason the patriots lost tonight, and neither was Brady.
>>
Welcome to the world of variables. You just stated a few there yourself.
Then,
On one hand you blame his teammates for costing him a chance to move on.
Then on the other hand you disregard the role his teammates had in his title runs by saying the "QB touches the ball soo many times etc...."
It can't be both ways, and it isn't.
Then you stated some of the reasons that Brady is rightfully in the top 2 QB's in the league(LIKE I SAID!), none of which changes based on how many titles he has won.
But then you disregarded the jist of the post.
Remember, he won't win a title with a bottom half defesne, plain and simple. I don't care if he sleeps with the ball. Any more elaboration on that subject, please go to the top of the post.
What is your point of this thread? Of course there are variables in sports...no one is disputing that. The only people who don't think Brady's among the all time best are either jealous or ignorant of what makes a great QB.
But I disagree with you...I think some QBs do have the ability to know how to win. In baseball, one guy can only do so much...but in football, the QB can make huge differences in the game...not by himself, but by putting the ball where only his receivers can get to it, and making better decisions than the defense he's facing.
I think you are putting far too little emphasis on how important the QB is. Of course having a good defense is important, but doesn't a quality QB, who can march up and down the field and keep his defense rested and fresh? Those long drives keeping the defense off the field is vital too.
A few points to consider..... to play for Belichek, it is not enough to have ability, he wants
brains also. Thats why most of his players can play 2-3 positions if needed.
Brady is one of the most unassuming athelete you could meet. When he wins, he always credits
his teammates. When he loses, he takes the blame. Also according to many people, what sets
Brady apart from most QB's is his field presence. His ability to see the whole field and to react
in a split second is amazing.
As I said in another thread... 2 min. left, down by 4, Pick 1 Qb for the last drive.
I would say close to 75% would want Brady.
my hotels
<< <i>skip-
What is your point of this thread? Of course there are variables in sports...no one is disputing that. The only people who don't think Brady's among the all time best are either jealous or ignorant of what makes a great QB.
But I disagree with you...I think some QBs do have the ability to know how to win. In baseball, one guy can only do so much...but in football, the QB can make huge differences in the game...not by himself, but by putting the ball where only his receivers can get to it, and making better decisions than the defense he's facing.
I think you are putting far too little emphasis on how important the QB is. Of course having a good defense is important, but doesn't a quality QB, who can march up and down the field and keep his defense rested and fresh? Those long drives keeping the defense off the field is vital too. >>
The point is that the "pinchmeister" prefers to pull numbers out of his butt and proceed to emasculate anyone who disagrees with the statistics.
Skin, your replys border on arrogant. "Well then you did not read this" "or that". Perhaps at times you are wrong.
Sorry, but the "Price Is Right" thing really irked me. By your own words you are baiting the posters then insulting their intelligence. Spirited debate is fun. Beginning your comments with snide remarks is not.
Oh, and Brady passed for more yardage this year than previous, yes? Did he not have the second best rating for his career? All of his other stats fall right in line with previous years.
Don't kill the guy because the D did not perform as well. He can't help that other than motivate them to play better.
What, have Brady and Jeter screwed you in a fantasy league?
Perhaps instead of running the numbers you could expound on the concept of leadership. This is what inspires the members of any team to reach their potential and go beyond.
Philly fan, you are the third guy that posted something smack dab what I said, and than acted as if it is a point in disagreement of my post. YOu said "DOn't kill the guy because the D did not perform well. He can't help that other than motivate them to play better." Philly fan that is EXACTLY what I am saying!! That is why I say the comprehension thing, because obviously it is missing. NO YOU CAN"T BLAME BRADY BECAUSE THE DEFENSE PLAYED BAD! JUST LIKE YOU CAN'T BLAME ALL THE OTHER QB'S IN HISTORY WHO HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO OVERCOME THAT!! That is right, and that is what I siad. My response isn't arrogance, it is dsibelief that people can't gather the key points, and then create a debate based on something that I didn't say. You understood the "Come on down" reference, but failed to obviously see the others.
Brady, however, was fortunate enough to be an excellent QB AND have the best defense in the league. On one hand you say you can't blame him for losing when his teammates play bad. Then on the other hand he is called a 'winner' because he knows how to win Super Bowls, yet the defense played such a large role in those events that it is foolish to blame the defense for him not winning, and then credit him as a 'winnner' when they did win.
By the way, this isn't stat based, there are examples of evidence used , and that is needed to wade through the garbagage that ignorant sports fans typically spout. If anything, it is based on mythology, because people sure seem to believe it.
And you sir are the second person on this board that I will now ignore.
<< <i>skip-
What is your point of this thread? Of course there are variables in sports...no one is disputing that. The only people who don't think Brady's among the all time best are either jealous or ignorant of what makes a great QB.
But I disagree with you...I think some QBs do have the ability to know how to win. In baseball, one guy can only do so much...but in football, the QB can make huge differences in the game...not by himself, but by putting the ball where only his receivers can get to it, and making better decisions than the defense he's facing.
I think you are putting far too little emphasis on how important the QB is. Of course having a good defense is important, but doesn't a quality QB, who can march up and down the field and keep his defense rested and fresh? Those long drives keeping the defense off the field is vital too. >>
Ax, Brady is one of the best because of what he does, NOT because of having Championships. The same goes for Aikman Vs. Marino. This could be Brady vs. Manning, though Manning is overrated for some other reasons, AND NOT HAVING A CHAMPIONSHIP IS NOT ONE OF THEM!!
You said we wouldn't be having this convo if Brady had won last night, well we wouldn't be having this conversation if the New England Patriots had the 20th ranked defense each of the last six years. Brady would have no Bowl and he wouldn't be labled a winner, and that is the point!! Brady was probably the best QB in the league this year, but he didnt' win a title. Brady was one of the best QB's in other title runs, and they did win. It isn't Brady that changed(though he may have actually gotten better), IT IS THE VARIABLES THAT CHANGED CAUSING THEM TO NOT WIN!!! So measure Brady independent of the variables, and everybody should stop measuring him based on TITLES, because that is absolutey nowhere near independent of the variables.
'Winner' lable is so dependant on what the team does. Dan Marino did not have that label, not because he couldn't do what Brady could, "like marching up and down the field to keep his team fresh," but simply because he never won a Super Bowl. The other components of his team were never near as good as Brady's, nor were all the other variables I mentioned, yet he is labled a choker/loser, and Brady a winner. Well, if Brady is a winner, and knows how to win, then why didn't he use that ability yesterday??? Why? Because he has only so much control over the outcome. He can't tackle, and neither could Marino, yet they are assessed on the tackling ability of their teammates when 'winner' and 'choker' are used. Not to mention being assessed on all the other variables.
Ax, you are the same guy in another thread who said people "invent their little friend" referring to Jeses/God, implying it makes them feel better etc... Yet, you are creating a mythical quality of 'winner' to be used as an evaluatin method and that quality just does not exist in the way it is being used. He is what he is based on what HE does, independant of what his TEAMMATES do. Here comes Phillyfan, "but he is a leader and he leads those guys to those titles...." Well, he should have used his leadership abilities yesterday. Brady didn't fail, some of his components broke down.
Ax, the same things were always said in the Jeter/Arod debates, and these people said the exact same things you are saying about Brady, the exact same things!! It made me puke then, and I am positive it made you puke too! Brady has a little more control over the outcome than does Jeter, but not as much as is being implied.
Remember, offense and defesne each have about 45% control over the game, special teams about 10%(maybe a bit higher). So right there Brady is only at 45% control of what happens. Running has about 20% of that offesnive control, which knocks Brady down to 25% where he is really involved in the play. Of that 25%, that gets divided among Brady and the offensive line, and any potential receivers role in it.
Which is the most important component for a title team, A. Passing game, B. Running Game, C. Offensive line, D. Defense, E. Special Teams?? GO through history and the most important component is D. Defense!! Most NFL experts would say C. Offensive line play is the next most important. Passing and Running usually come out equal. Then special teams always has a way of deciding the outcome of the game. Yet Tom Brady is labeled a 'winner' because all of those componenets were the best in the league, and fired on all cylinders during post season?? And Dan Marino is labled a choker because the most important component on his team was usually among the worst?? Then we don't even touch all the other varibles that occur, some of which I mentioned. Ax, that is the point of the thread.
P.S. Most disagree with what I write on this, because they believe dearly in the myths of sports etc...Humans have a way of doing that about everything, and if i come off arrogant because I don't fall prey to that stuff, then so be it.
OK, one more just because I have the need to use your own tactics.
Read it again.
You arrogantly misquoted me. My reference to Brady was "he can only motivate them to play better."
The reference to leadership was a challenge for you to tell us about the concept. Obviously it is foreign to you.
Leadership is one of your "variables" that is not measurable. Probably the reason why you cannot consider it in your theory. A great player can bring the whole team to the height of success. Others want the same success. A great teammate will use his leadership skills on and off the field to bring the team to their best.
This is sports. Numbers are not all that determines success. You will find that the formula for success is achieved before the playing and winning begins. What is this? It's leadership and teamwork. It's team members agreeing to work together toward a common goal, no matter the challenge. It is respect for all and support for those not graced with the skills of others. It is one or two players rising above everyone and taking the rest to a place that they would not go themselves.
Measure that.
I do feel Wilt Chamberlin was MUCH the better player than Bill Russell, even though he was on "only" two world championship teams.
World champion team membership should probably be used as a "tie-breaker" or least significant factor when comparing player's talent.
I repeat again, is Tom Brady called a winner and leader if the New England Patriots have the 20th ranked defense in all his years?? NO, and I repeat NO. Because HE WOULD SIMPLY NOT HAVE ANY TITLES AND HE WOULD GET THE MARINO TAG!! He isn't any more or less of a leader/winner today when they lost, than he was when they won.
He hasn't changed, his team has, so it is foolish to exhault him as possessing some sort of magical intangible that supreme QB's like Marino, Elway, Kelly, and Tarkenton are seemiingly lacking in the view that you are holding. If he had this sort of magical ability, then he would be able to carry a 25th ranked defense, on the road, because he "knows how to win," yet he cannot and will not, JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER GREAT QB's who couldn't!! Not until everything is aligned, and all the components and variables fall in place will a QB reign in a title. SO much of it is out of his control, and for pete's sake, with knowing so much is out of his control how in earth can anybody say "Brady has three titles, therefore he is a winner and is better than Marino blah blah blah."
They say that because they are either blinded by the myth, or they just don't know any better.
If you cannot grasp this, then I geuss you still believe in Santa Clause. I need a few bucks, so maybe I will go lose a few teeth and put them under my pillow. I believe in that, and nothing you say will change it.
I understand the need for having a hero, most folks need that. Brady ain't anymore of a leader than Marino, Tarkenton, Kelly, or pre Terrell Davis Elway, yet he has rings, not because he is a better leader, but because the components of a championship team, and all the variables lined up in his favor!!! Once those disappear, Brady isn't any different than those guys, and this is year one on that track.
Your jealousy of how great a player Brady is and how his accomplishments are lauded are laughable.
Quit denying it, you have a phd - player hating degree.
Now go bury your nose back in some stat books, as you have NO clue what means to be a champion.
I repeat again, if Tom Brady somehow has some intangible of winning, that Qb's just as good or better than him do not possess, then where are the intangibles when the variables are not in his favor? He knows how to win, and a player that 'knows' how to win doesn't throw an interception that goes back for 99 yards and changes the outcome of the game. He knows how to win. Obviously that is bunk, but you guys believe it.
P.S. Ax, since you bring up the ability to play, I have no problem having a sporting contest with you. This isn't about that, so I'm not sure why you bring that up, but I would oblige.
Ax, you are a guy that says people "make up a little friend" in Jesus, and yet you make up some mythical ability in Tom Brady that supposedly QB's that are jsut as good or better seem to be lacking in your book. Then you guys fail to recognize the facts of what is really at work, and totally disregard the evidence because it doesn't jive with your mythical beliefs. If you say that about Brady, you need to take away all the comments you made about Derek Jeter being a leader and the bullsh!t it is, as that is hypocracy in the truest form. You can't have it both ways.
Just like it can't be both ways with Brady. Since he will no longer win(unless his defese is near #1 again), I geuss he is no longer a leader. The evidence is overwhelming, go a head and LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED in the NFL.
Then when you are done looking, reread the initial post.
Enjoy the games fellas, I know I will...heck I got the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, and Zeus coming over to watch it with me. Were gonna have a hoot.
unlike baseball, a QB CAN and does take his team onto his shoulders and affects the outcome of the game. I'm sorry Brady somehow (in your mind, at least) wronged you in some way so that you feel you need to berate and begrudge his success.
Would you say Michael Jordan was a leader? He took players around him that were by no means special and elevated their games...or is Jordan overrated too? Would Scottie Pippen have been an all time great if he didn't have Jordan elevating his game? If Jordan doesn't go play baseball, that Bulls team wins 8 titles in a row.
I think you want to take away from the specialness that is unique in a player like Brady. Yes it's a team game, but to deny his greatness because of some petty feelings you have is just laughable, at best.
What you FAIL to see time and again is that there are some things that cannot be put into numbers...I know you're a big time numbers and stats geek, and for some qualities cannot be quantified. I know this can't compute in that 'expert analyst' brain of yours, since you can't look outside the numbers, but try.
Good luck convincing anyone else that Brady is overrated. As the poster above asked: 2:00 mins left in the game, your team down by 5...who do YOU want leading that drive?
I'd want Brady.
In baseball the pitcher can do what the QB does for football. he can hold the other team down while giving his team a chance to comeback. Yes he needs his fielders and hitters too. A team is a team when a guy rises up and leads them, and thus they work towards a common goal.............a win. sometimes they lose and that is ok too. If one won all the time what fun would that be?
JMO
Steve
Ax, you can apply everything I am saying about Brady, and put it to Bradshaw or Aikman. It isn't Brady, it is the flawed logic people use to judge them...TITLES WON! No need to rewrite why that is, I already did.
This isn't really even a stat based argument, it is an argument in logic and REALITY. It is an argument based on how titles were attained. It is all there for you to look at. Look at the list of components I listed, and you see what I am talking about. GO through the history of the NFL and you will see what I am talking about. Yes, the evidence needs to be used. It isn't just opinions, otherwise I say Trent Dilfer is better than Dan Marino and Jim Kelly combined, because Dilfer knows how to win a title and those guys don't!
Michael Jordan is a GREAT example for what I AM SAYING!! He was the best player in the game, and they didnt' win a title for a long time while he was there. I lived close trhough that, and he was called all the "Not a team player," and "Not a winner" stuff while he was Mr. Everything, because didn't have a title. His titles didn't come until the team around him got better, and the younger guys like Pippen and Grant matured. What is so hard to understand about that? He didn't play different, he took the same percentage of shots, still led in scoring, but the other guys simply did THEIR JOB better, thus making a BETTER TEAM!
If you continue this stance Ax, you need to apologize to all the Yankee fans for your berating of them for calling Derek Jeter a leader stuff. It can't be both ways.
Yes, the QB in and of itself is the single most important position, but the passing portion of the game as a whole is NOT. I listed the components above, and common rankings of such.
A baseball pitcher has a lot of control over the outcome of the game, but as we've seen soo many times, whether or not he gets a WIN is GREATLY influenced by factors beyond his control, much like a QB. Simply judge him on what he does.
P.S. I'd take Brady among active QB's now too in any situation. Manning is overrated because he has all those weapons, and plays in an environment condusive for putting up numbers. He is darn good, but I'd like to see him do that in a different environment! At worst, Brady is two, so how am I underrating him?
The QB on the other hand, single handedly has the most affect on the game and deserves the praise and criticism that goes with it.
Jordan's game did change as he matured, he got those around him more involved and raised their games.
Jeter, as a leadoff man, has clearly the most plate apperances for the Yankees, and Jeter being a SS clearly has the most defensive plays among the 8 positin players. Yes, a 1B has more PO, but the majority of those are routine. The SS is the key man on defense. So Jeter is the Key man on defense and bats the most often on his team.
The paralell is the concept of BEING A LEADER and MAKING THE OTHERS AROUND BETTER is the exact same for both of those guys. You dismiss the claims by Jeter backers as reason for Yankee titles, but embrace Brady's. At the very least your stance should be, yeah they both do have big impacts as a leader, but Brady probably a little more. But no, you dismiss Jeter entirely. Hypocracy.
Jordan's game did not mature. The players around him did. He didnt' pass any more, he was still a 'hog'. He was still an ahole at practice. Jordan in 1989 had no titles, Jordan in 1991 did. He was the exact same player. The only difference was his teammates were better, especially on the defensive side of the ball. Both observationally and statisically back up what I am saying. I watched EVERY single game from 1985 to 1993(save for special occasins that inteferred), and I studied all the evidence to boot. The reason for the Bulls titles was the maturation of Pippen and Grant, and the greatness that had always existed with Jordan. Sprinkle in a good group of role players, and there you have it.
Jordan did change his game during the SECOND title run. He bacame more of a post up player, and less of a penetrator. His defense was also nowhere near where it was during his prime. He didn't mature, he morphed. The second title run Jordan was a slightly different player than the first, certainly not better. The first title run Jordan was exactly the same as the Pre Title Jordan. Teammates were the difference.
In fact, during his later title runs, defensively he was a shadow of his former self.
Back to the football, go back and study every season, and playoff runs from the Bradshaw years to now. I saw them all, and studied them all. YOu will see what the components comprised of for the championship teams.
You have to either back off on Brady, or add to Jeter's legacy if you wish to continue your stance. Many claim Jeter knew how to win. He could raise the level of play of everybody by showing how to win. He could always do things like "The Play" that nobody else could. That is why Arod never won a title because he didn't have the 'winning' intangibles. Just like Marino never could because he didn't ahve them either. That Jeter statment holds true, and I want to see you debunk it!
I now understand what you have been trying to say..............i agree.
Steve
Had 11% of teams plate appearances.
Had 16% of fielding plays on batted balls. Not counting 1B putouts where 1B was receivng a throw to first.
Was the spokesman, motivator, and inspirational leader by both word and example, as well as singlehadidly being the most involved player on the team by far.
kind of sounds like the Tom Brady of baseball, and Jeter plays defense too! How man tackles did Brady have?
Brady 2005...
Tom Brady Pass attempts accounted for 24% of all the plays the Patriots were involved in. Of course, Brady is only one aspect of a pass attempt, as the offensive line and receivers play a large role in that too, and deserve plenty of credit too on a completion. You can't complete too many passes lying on your back, or with guys dropping them. It certainly isn't 24% all going to Brady's role on the team.
An educated geuss puts him in the teens somewhere percent wise, certainly the highest individual total among individual players, but nowhere neaer the credit people give. Again, the defense as a unit is far more important to excel in, than the passer of the ball. Teams can get away with great defense, and running game, and just have a manager or pretty good player at QB.
Steve, a lot of words written by me, and when I say comprehend to people and reread, it isn't an insult. I mean it. People dont' take the time to read and digest, they just reply what they feel what they think I am saying. The evidence and logic is all right there.
A player no matter how good will win only when surrounded with good players. Which in most cases is true. Koufax would not have been 26 and 7 with the 62 Mets. No one player makes a team a team.
That is what i took from the original post once my ADD got thru it all.
Steve
<< <i>...dont understand where your post is trying to go??
>>
It's OK guys, no one knows where his posts are going...not even him. He likes the sound of his fingers on the keyboard. For every interesting point he makes, he overstates another and becomes condescending. Tom Brady is a fine quarterback and an obvious HOF'er.
I don't think a statistic has ever put shoulder pads on. Apparently the pinch is now our resident FOOTball expert as well...
dgf
dgf nailed it...you make a point then overstate it again and again, insulting those you are addressing by talking down to them, as if they aren't able to grasp your points. WE GET IT.
You think Brady is overhyped. You think Brady is a good quarterback, but not deserving of the praises he receives. One would think from your tirades that you're a colts fan who has been burned time and again by the superior quarterback.
The basis of most of my points is "THings people say without really looking at the evidence," and ooh how true it is across the board in all sports evaluations by most sports fans, writers, broadcaster, anyone, including players and former players.
Joe Morgan, the biggest bafoon, was trying to cheapen Ernie Banks by saying something to the effect of...."How many of Ernie's home runs were from the aid of the basket at Wrigley Field?" He was assuming something like 50 or more. He was adament about it, yet the basket was up only the last few years of his career, where Ernie only had a small amount of Home Runs TOTAL.
Evidence comes in different ways, in baseball, especially offensively you can get there 95% of the way with a GOOD stat evaulation. Defense is a little more hazy, but still o.k. and FAR better than person's EYES AND PERCEPTION. Football has less correlation because YOU ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS THE GUY BLOCKING IN FRONT OF YOU, AND THE GUY BLOCKING IN FRONT IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE GUY BEHIND HIM. Football stats have to take a lot of factors into account, in terms of how good your teammates are, as well as the system and environment you play in. Those have very direct impacts that are tough to measure. My argument here wasn't even a stat based argument. It certainly had strong evidence to favor it, but not stat based as in the baseball measurements.
We know how perception always fails! Right here on these boards when the one guy claimed to have seen upteen amount of late inning home runs from Joe Carter at Fenway! When I went throgh the play by play, he never even hit a single late inning clutch HR at Fenway, and his perception wasn't even in the universe in any way shape or form. I can go on and on about all this stuff, and if it sounds condescending, then it is probably because somebody had their conventional wisdom shaken up and they couldn't handle it.
Again, people tend to see what they want to believe, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That isn't any different then dealing with Carl Everret. Have you ever sat in a room while Everret talked about his nonsense?? That is why I asked Axtell to take back his comments about Derek Jeter because he was making HUGE contradiction in his philosophy, HUGE.
<< <i>That is why I asked Axtell to take back his comments about Derek Jeter because he was making HUGE contradiction in his philosophy, HUGE. >>
You are wrong...you cannot compare the effect of a shortstop to a quarterback...simply cannot be done. You want to think you are this expert baseball analyst, but your failure to understand the importance of a QB in football only illustrates how you don't understand the game of football at all.
We all know it takes a good team for a QB to be successful. But on the other hand, it takes a GREAT Qb to take a good team to the promised land. One need to only look at the flailing of Peyton Manning in the playoffs over the years to make this point crystal clear. Manning has had unlimited weapons at his disposal, and even had a GREAT defense, and yet he still blew it. THAT is the difference between a great QB (Manning) and a champion (Brady).
Unfortunately in your rush to try to quantify everything, you miss this point time and again. You cannot accept the fact that Brady simply wins, and does so under the most adverse of conditions (injuried plagued teams, no top flight receivers, and until last year, no top flight RB).
Manning has a HOF RB and WR, and yet he still can't get it done.
Any more questions skippy?
boorish - ill-mannered and coarse and contemptible in behavior or appearance; "was boorish and insensitive"; "the loutish manners of a bully"; "her stupid oafish husband"; "aristocratic contempt for the swinish multitude"
<< <i>Jeter is overrated as a leader, because one bat and one fielder can not do all that much to affect the game.
The QB on the other hand, single handedly has the most affect on the game and deserves the praise and criticism that goes with it.
Jordan's game did change as he matured, he got those around him more involved and raised their games. >>
This is a very interesting thread. Not to get off topic BUT if I take Axtell's opinion about Jeter being over rated as a leader BECAUSE one bat and one fielder can not do to much to affect a particular game then I suppose that there ARE NO leaders on a diamond besides the QB of baseball, the catcher. Forget the top flight starter, he only has a chance to affect the outcome of 35 games per year. Jeter or any other position player has at least the chance to affect the outcome of EVERY game. With this said, I think it is absurd to discount a shortstop or any other everyday player in baseball as a leader. A very good catcher would be the first place to look and it is no suprise that they make excellent managers.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Lets get together and play a game, we each QB, and I pick the rest of your team and the rest of my team. We will wager $5,000. I will even play off handed since I would be rated a higher passer and that isn't fair then. If the QB impacts the game that much, then you have an easy five grand.
Yes I do have more questions for you? How many career tackles does Tom Brady have??
How many quarterbacks have won a Super Bowl with a bottom half defense?
If a QB were so important as you say, then they should have NO PROBLEM TAKING A BOTTOM HALF DEFENSE TO THE TITLE!! If their impact is above that 25% number, say 50% as you seem to be putting it, then taking an 18th ranked defense to the title should be common, why hasn't it happened?
How many teams won a super bowl without a HOF type QB?
Which is more, teams winning with a bottom half defense and HOF QB, or teams winning without a HOF QB?
Tom Brady has a direct significant impact on roughly 25% of the plays in a football game. He probably has a one percent impact on running plays. Of that 25%, he carries a higher percentage of importance than any individual player on offense, HOWEVER, the offesnive line as a unit has a VERY STRONG say on the impact of EVERY passing play, as do the receivers. How somebody does not recognize this is beyond me.
Derek Jeter had 11% of his teams plate appearances. 11%. RIght there he already has half the direct impact on his offense as Bady. They both need help if their impact is to result in runs/points. Brady needs more help, as he goes nowhere without blocking, let alone somebody catching his passes. Jeter could create runs all by himself, or with minimal help from teammates. SO I think 25% to 11% at face value is fairly close. Just to be nice, I'd even up Brady's impact to 30%.
But JETER PLAYS DEFENSE!! As I showed he had VERY SIGNIFICANT impact on 16% of the batted balls. If you want to include strikeouts as defense, then he has about 14% impact on all outs. That is not insifnificant at all! AT ALL! UNDERSTAND YET?
Those percentages can be debated a tad here or there, but there is no doubt that Jeter's impact is higher than people think, and Brady's is lower. BUT EVEN IF THE SEPARATION WAS 25% to 10%, with both being the highest individual on the team in terms of impacting the team, than they are both considered the undisputed impacters of the team, PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
NOW that some real light has been put on how much they really do impact the game, the issue is PRIMARILY LEADERSHIP we are talking about. Leadership as in doing it in the important games, and raising the level of play of your teammates with some sort of mythical ability. EVERYTHING YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT BRADY applies to what people say about Jeter, and their claims are not any different than yours.
In fact, some may claim McGinest or Bruschi as the leaders of the Patriots, and not Tom Brady. SOme consider their coach the real leader too.
Ax, you can avoid it anyway you want, but you are at a crossroads. You deny Jeter da leader, but embrace Brady the leader.
AT THE VERY LEAST you have to admit, if you wish to continue your myth believing, that Jeter is the undisputed leader of the Yankees and his leadership was instrumental for their titles...though maybe not as much as Brady with his teams, but he is mythical ability is important for the titles. I'm not even saying you have to say they have equal impact, but based on the truth that was presented here, you have to at least give some leadership credit to Jeter, or you must abandon your stance as your are looking foolish as being ripe with hypocracy!
By the way, add Alex Rodriguez to the Peyton Manning of baseball while you are at it. He epitomizes everything you say about Manning. Everything you have said about Manning has also been said about Arod.
Maybe you need to join me next time and listen about Carl Everett talk about dinosaurs. Then I want you to try and prove to him that they did indeed exist. Then maybe you will see what it is like to talk to someone who just disregards the
EDITED TO ADD. HECK, how many QB's have taken a defense NOT IN THE TOP TEN to the title? That is still a pretty good defense 10-15.
I mainly want an admission on some acknowledgement as Jeter being a leader, with his leadership being a key to their titles, THEN I WILL RESPECT YOUR OPINION ON BRADY HAVING MYTHICAL ABILITY. AN OPINION IS AN OPINION, BUT I CAN"T STAND BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS!!
arrogant - having or showing feelings of unwarranted importance out of overbearing pride; "an arrogant official"; "arrogant claims"; "chesty as a peacoc$"
supercilious - disdainful: having or showing arrogant superiority to and disdain of those one views as unworthy; "some economists are disdainful of their colleagues in other social disciplines"; "haughty aristocrats"; "his lordly manners were offensive"; "walked with a prideful swagger"; "very sniffy about breaches of etiquette"; "his mother eyed my clothes with a supercilious air"; "a more swaggering mood than usual"
Secondly, you cannot compare the effects of a single player in baseball to that of the QB...the parallels just aren't there. I would understand comparing a pitching staff to a QB, as they both have the single most interaction in a game, but a SS? Come on now.
As far as HoF QB's, why not instead say MVP quarterbacks? There have been several super bowl winning quarterbacks who had incredible years (Kurt Warner being the latest).
Super Bowl Recap:
39 - Brady (future HoFer)
38 - see above
37 - Brad Johnson
36 - Brady
35 - Dilfer (no argument here, defense won that super bowl)
34 - Warner (and league MVP that year)
33 - Elway (HoF)
32 - see above
31 - Favre (HoF)
30 - Aikman (HoF)
29 - Steve Young (HoF)
28 - Aikman (HoF)
27 - see above
26 - Rypien (super bowl MVP)
25 - Hostettler
24 - Montana (HoF)
23 - see above
22 - Doug Williams
21 - Simms (HoF)
20 - McMahon
19 - Montana (HoF)
18 - Plunkett
17 - Thiesmann (HoF)
16 - Montana (HoF)
15 - Plunkett
14 - Bradshaw (HoF)
13 - see above
12 - Staubach (HoF)
11 - Stabler
10 - Bradshaw (HoF)
9 - see above
8 - Griese (HoF)
7 - see above
6 - Staubach (HoF)
5 - Unitas (HoF)
4 - Dawson (HoF)
3 - Namath (HoF)
2 - Starr (HoF)
1 - see above
29 of 39 super bowl winning teams have HoF quarterbacks (Aikman and Brady not officially in...but they will be). That's nearly 75%.
People making claims that are so unfounded, but they are made because they want to feel like they know what they are talking about. YES, you hit it. I hate it too when I run up against that. It sure is nice when I debate/discuss with people that actually provide substance, and do it from a platform of no bias, nor with a desire to make them feel good by living through a hero. Also, people that can stick to the discussion on hand, and be able to read exactly what is written. Don't you think that if somebody is going to reply to stance which is based on strong evidence, that it should behoove them to ACTUALLY READ THE ENTIRE PASSAGE before criticizng it. Man that always happens, don't you hate it? Then they get the whole thing wrong. Have you ever had that experience?
I write this to seek TRUTH and to wade through all the unsubstantiated, and hero worshiping garbage that people always spout out. They are followers, and are afraid to dig into reality as what they may find may shake their beliefs. People can't handle that. It is far easier to just say what everybody else says. Not in my book.
I like disucussing with intelligent people that stick to the topic, somebody like Dallasactuary, that uses logic, substance, and know-how to discuss something. And he actually reads all the words, and comprehends them to boot. That is refreshing.
Sofillyfan, let me ask you a straight question....Did dinosaurs ever exist??? Simple question.
In case this gets missed, here it is again...
<< <i>I'll say it again, in football, basically you are only as good as the guy blocking in front of you, and the guy blocking in front is only as good as the guy behind. IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT, THEN YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS ANALYZING FOOTBALL! FOr a QB, not only is the blocking a MAJOR factor, but the receivers are as well. To give a QB that much credit/blame for the success of the entire team is idiotic.
Lets get together and play a game, we each QB, and I pick the rest of your team and the rest of my team. We will wager $5,000. I will even play off handed since I would be rated a higher passer and that isn't fair then. If the QB impacts the game that much, then you have an easy five grand.
Yes I do have more questions for you? How many career tackles does Tom Brady have??
How many quarterbacks have won a Super Bowl with a bottom half defense?
If a QB were so important as you say, then they should have NO PROBLEM TAKING A BOTTOM HALF DEFENSE TO THE TITLE!! If their impact is above that 25% number, say 50% as you seem to be putting it, then taking an 18th ranked defense to the title should be common, why hasn't it happened?
How many teams won a super bowl without a HOF type QB?
Which is more, teams winning with a bottom half defense and HOF QB, or teams winning without a HOF QB?
Tom Brady has a direct significant impact on roughly 25% of the plays in a football game. He probably has a one percent impact on running plays. Of that 25%, he carries a higher percentage of importance than any individual player on offense, HOWEVER, the offesnive line as a unit has a VERY STRONG say on the impact of EVERY passing play, as do the receivers. How somebody does not recognize this is beyond me.
Derek Jeter had 11% of his teams plate appearances. 11%. RIght there he already has half the direct impact on his offense as Bady. They both need help if their impact is to result in runs/points. Brady needs more help, as he goes nowhere without blocking, let alone somebody catching his passes. Jeter could create runs all by himself, or with minimal help from teammates. SO I think 25% to 11% at face value is fairly close. Just to be nice, I'd even up Brady's impact to 30%.
But JETER PLAYS DEFENSE!! As I showed he had VERY SIGNIFICANT impact on 16% of the batted balls. If you want to include strikeouts as defense, then he has about 14% impact on all outs. That is not insifnificant at all! AT ALL! UNDERSTAND YET?
Those percentages can be debated a tad here or there, but there is no doubt that Jeter's impact is higher than people think, and Brady's is lower. BUT EVEN IF THE SEPARATION WAS 25% to 10%, with both being the highest individual on the team in terms of impacting the team, than they are both considered the undisputed impacters of the team, PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
NOW that some real light has been put on how much they really do impact the game, the issue is PRIMARILY LEADERSHIP we are talking about. Leadership as in doing it in the important games, and raising the level of play of your teammates with some sort of mythical ability. EVERYTHING YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT BRADY applies to what people say about Jeter, and their claims are not any different than yours.
In fact, some may claim McGinest or Bruschi as the leaders of the Patriots, and not Tom Brady. SOme consider their coach the real leader too.
Ax, you can avoid it anyway you want, but you are at a crossroads. You deny Jeter da leader, but embrace Brady the leader.
AT THE VERY LEAST you have to admit, if you wish to continue your myth believing, that Jeter is the undisputed leader of the Yankees and his leadership was instrumental for their titles...though maybe not as much as Brady with his teams, but he is mythical ability is important for the titles. I'm not even saying you have to say they have equal impact, but based on the truth that was presented here, you have to at least give some leadership credit to Jeter, or you must abandon your stance as your are looking foolish as being ripe with hypocracy!
By the way, add Alex Rodriguez to the Peyton Manning of baseball while you are at it. He epitomizes everything you say about Manning. Everything you have said about Manning has also been said about Arod.
Maybe you need to join me next time and listen about Carl Everett talk about dinosaurs. Then I want you to try and prove to him that they did indeed exist. Then maybe you will see what it is like to talk to someone who just disregards the
EDITED TO ADD. HECK, how many QB's have taken a defense NOT IN THE TOP TEN to the title? That is still a pretty good defense 10-15.
I mainly want an admission on some acknowledgement as Jeter being a leader, with his leadership being a key to their titles, THEN I WILL RESPECT YOUR OPINION ON BRADY HAVING MYTHICAL ABILITY. AN OPINION IS AN OPINION, BUT I CAN"T STAND BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS!! >>
But first, you are STILL making a MAJOR contradiction with the impact of the SS and your leadership assertion.... Do not dodge that question, or statement. I can compare, and I did, and it is accurate.
Then check how many Super Bowls those guys won when they didn't have a top ten defense....
Then go back to my initial posts and see what I had to say about the components and variables.....and how it takes a complte team to win, INCLUDING AN EXCELLENT QUARTERBACK!!! You are still missing it.
Make lists to those football questions just like you did with the QB list. And for the love of God, thank you for putting something of substance in the thread!
<< <i>Jeter 1998...
Had 11% of teams plate appearances.
Had 16% of fielding plays on batted balls. Not counting 1B putouts where 1B was receivng a throw to first.
Was the spokesman, motivator, and inspirational leader by both word and example, as well as singlehadidly being the most involved player on the team by far.
>>
I have to say, Jeter is truly a "face of the franchise" kind of guy and a leader unlike any I have ever seen in baseball since another Yankee, Thurman Munson. There have been a few good ones; George Brett comes to mind, Terry Pendleton, Jason Varitek of more recent vintage, but Jeter is the top of the line. I may not use my "#1" non-pitcher pick on Jeter anymore due to age, but 5 years ago Jeter was a slam-dunk for me as the games greatest impact player.
While I agree with pinch on Jeter, I also think Tom Brady is an integral part of what the Patriots have done and continue to do. He is a man of great character and commands respect from his team like few QB's do. This is a guy who earns the respect of players to give their bodies up (literally) every down of every game. Many of the players who protect him weekly may well have not even PLAYED with a white player until they got to college. We take the ethnic barriers that some of these guys break down for granted as well.
Brady & Jeter should both be HOF'ers in my opinion and I'd like either one on my club anytime. They are the type of guys who even have a bit of value when they're injured. That's rare.
dgf
Skinflint -
Either you are a moron or a raving egomaniac.
The definitions were meant for you.
Why don't you find another hobby.
I rest my case, Pinchboy.
Jim Kelly's four Super Bowl teams were ranked 6,18,14,6 defesnively. Obviously they got their on the strenth of their superb offense, and home field advantage in the playoffs. In the first Bowl they were the better team. Thats the Scott Norwood bowl-Vinatieri makes that.
IN the Second Bowl, wtih an 18th ranked defense? Come on. Then a 14th ranked defense, come on again. Then a sixth ranked defense in the last bowl, BUT THEY HAD TO PLAY ONE OF THE BEST TEAMS IN HISTORY in DALLAS. That is a variable. They played that team TWICE! Brady never had to play against a BEST TEAM EVER COMPETITOR.
Marino got to one Bowl, but HE HAD TO PLAY A BEST TEAM EVER FINALIST TOO! That was his last season where he had a defense remotely close to shadowing a Super Bowl team, not to mention RB either.
Tarkenton had the defense for his teams, problem is he faced the Miami dynasty, the Pittsburgh dynasty, and the Madden crazy Oakland team. Jeez! What the heck do you expect? You think Brady has three rings having to face the 49er dynasty, and the Cowboy dynasty? These guys lost to the all-time best teams, teams that are always ranked in the top ten when that discussion comes about. THE CREAM OF THE CROP.
Peyton Manning? This was his first year with a real defense, and he had home field advantage. No doubt though, this was their opportunity, and they screwed it up. Some blame the layoff, or the fact that Pittsburgh kept getting first downs when everybody knew they were going to run in the 4th quarter. Is it all Mannings fault?? The problem is, everybody says he is the absolute best QB in the league, and that probably isn't true. He is helped immensely by the weapons around him to achieve such lofty stats, and those stats are inflated. I, like you, think Tom Brady is better simply by the virtue of doing it with less on offense, and in the outdoor environment. That is where the basis of the argument should be, not that he has three titles, because that is wrought with difficulties with all the variables.
Brady was fortunate to not have Scott Norwood on his team, not to have to play the all time best teams in multiple Super Bowl appearances, and to have a Super Bowl caliber defense. Had he been put into the Jim Kelly situation, he wouldn't have three Super Bowls. Different story going against the Mid 90's Cowboys, instead of Carolina! Now that this is year one of that change in defensive caliber, we are seeing an example of what I am talking about. My hunch is that it will continue unless his components and variables change back to championship favor.
P.S. Phillyfan, I just wanted to thank you again for shedding light on the common things I like to gripe about. Those people who make absurd claims are annoying. I even knew some guy that looked up words he didn't know the meaning of just to make himself look exactly like the definitions he was spouting. Imagine that.
John Wayne new guy, from reading my own posts it looks like I need some grammar refreshers too. Hey, I'm having a blast here. Fun discussion.