NFL 2011 Season

[Sober_times]

I think its very difficult to compare players from different eras. Brady had the gift of pro passing nfl rules. Montana had the gift of no salary cap so his team could stay pretty much the same the entire time he was with the 49ers, minus injury and retirement.

I think opinion on who is best has a lot to do with when you watched football and what eras you have experienced. Personally, I was born in 81 and didn't really start watching football till around 11 or 12. Montana was at the tail end of his career so ive only seen the highlights. I know his accolades but i never really watched him play until he was already in Kansas City and he wasn't the same there. So i feel i almost can't form a complete opinion on Montana. I've been told he was great. I've seen the highlight reel but its really tough for me to say when my only real exposure are other peoples thoughts and nfl film highlight reels.

The first Patriot qb i got into was Bledsoe. I always liked him. He's not the greatest but he was decent. I remember hating the dolphins but still enjoying Dan Marino and how he threw the ball. To me, i've never seen a better pure passer than Dan Marino. I loved watching Elway in the mid to late 90's. Think Favre is one of the best i've seen. I love Tom Brady, maybe thats the patriot fan inside, but i think he belongs in the discussion of best qb ever. His accolades give him a spot in the discussion. And his career isn't even over yet. Peyton Manning is a very good qb. I think he belongs in the discussion. And he did it with the pro passing rules and a lot of better offensive weapons his entire career than brady has had.

Its tough to call. Its just so subjective.

True, but he's putting up the numbers, and winning championships. What else would you have him do? He doesn't make the rules.
Eli, Brees, Rodgers, Ben are playing in the same era, but they have not enjoyed the same success.
QBs with better supporting casts than Brady are sitting at home right now and will be watching the SB on TV.

I agree with you. Montana is the best ever.  Brady will have to put up numbers that CRUSH Montana's for me to consider him better....because in today's league, it's easier to put up big numbers.  So far, he's not there yet.

One thing Montana has that Brady won't ever be able to say is that he was undefeated in the big game.
There are countless reasons why I don't think Kobe belongs on the same internet as MJ, but that was always a big one for me.
6 Finals, 6 rings, 6 MVPs. That's the end of the Kobe/MJ debate as far as I'm concerned, and it may end up being the same deal with Brady/ Montana.

I agree that MJ is on a different planet. I always compared MJ dominance in basketball to Jerry Rice's dominance as a wide reciever. Football is so much more a team sport where its difficult for one guy to make the type of impact mj did. But I have always thought Jerry Rice is on a different planet just like mj. I think alot of posistions in the nfl can be argued as who is the best ever. But too me I've never seen anyone better at his posistion than Jerry Rice.

But it still goes back to what you've seen and what you experienced. I was lucky enough to watch MJ in his prime. Guys who didn't have only seen the highlight reel which never really does it justice to just how dominant he was which is why so many younger basketball fans argue for Kobe being better.

[GeorgeSteele]

MJ is numero uno, we all agree on that.  But he won 6 titles because he was great, he's not great because he won 6 titles. 

Been watching football since 81. I agree with ST that Dan Marino was the greatest pure passer ever.  But I have to believe he would have led his team to at least 1 SB if he had even average mobility.  Those types of weaknesses tend to get exposed.  Contrast that with Montana, who was not as good a passer as Marino -- but had no glaring weaknesses, and it sheds light on why he was so much more successful.   

Fav-ruh, as much of a clown he ended up being towards the end there, there's no other QB I've seen who has pulled off more 'WOW' plays than he has (which I understand is well balanced with his WTF plays). 

Contrast Favre with Brady, who I just find mind-numbingly boring to watch.  The dink and dunk is boring football, it just is, but I'll grant Brady that he's very good at it, maybe the best.  Brady only threw the deep ball with success when he had a superhuman Randy Moss to throw to.  When Moss started slipping (but was still a very good receiver), Belichik had to dump Moss to refocus Brady on his strengths, which are the short routes.  Also, like Marino, Brady has concrete shoes.  I have zero doubt that the Pats would have beaten the Giants 4 years ago if Brady could have at least worked himself up to a snail's pace.   

[Bodhi]

  I have zero doubt that the Pats would have beaten the Giants 4 years ago if Brady could have at least worked himself up to a snail's pace.   

or if the Pats d could have made that final stop.  You forget, Tom Brady threw a Super Bowl winning TD pass to Randy Moss late in the fourth, despite getting destroyed by the Giants pass rush all day.  Tom Brady didn't lose that super bowl.

[GeorgeSteele]

  I have zero doubt that the Pats would have beaten the Giants 4 years ago if Brady could have at least worked himself up to a snail's pace.   

or if the Pats d could have made that final stop.  You forget, Tom Brady threw a Super Bowl winning TD pass to Randy Moss late in the fourth, despite getting destroyed by the Giants pass rush all day.  Tom Brady didn't lose that super bowl.

I don't think it should have come the final stop.  That Pats team was billed as having one of the greatest offenses ever, so when they put up only 14 pts, I think the QB has to take most of the heat.   

[sandman]

a big piece of Brady's legacy will be written sunday. if we wins SB #4, then he is neck and neck with Montana as the greatest ever. i agree that it's more than just SBs, which is why i wouldn't automatically give it to Montana (since he was a perfect 4-0). there's alot of factors and it's a close call. it would be a total toss-up if brady wins on sunday.

i always felt like Brady accomplished alot with less of a supporting cast around him. Brady made his WRs good, whereas i think Montana and alot of other great QBs were helped by having pro bowl WRs and RBs. and many great QBs had the SAME skill position players for most of their career. that has not been the case with Brady which is a huge disadvantage.

also, as far as Brady being a dink and dunk QB, his career YPA is identical to Montana's.

[Sober_times]

Contrast Favre with Brady, who I just find mind-numbingly boring to watch.  The dink and dunk is boring football, it just is, but I'll grant Brady that he's very good at it, maybe the best.  Brady only threw the deep ball with success when he had a superhuman Randy Moss to throw to.  When Moss started slipping (but was still a very good receiver), Belichik had to dump Moss to refocus Brady on his strengths, which are the short routes.  Also, like Marino, Brady has concrete shoes.  I have zero doubt that the Pats would have beaten the Giants 4 years ago if Brady could have at least worked himself up to a snail's pace.   

He does more than dink and dunk football. He takes what the defense gives him. Ray Lewis sums up that point better than i could when talking about brady in that top 100 players of 2011 feature the nfl network did back in july. High praise from a great player.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwHSjng55uw

Around the 4:40 mark is when Ray Lewis talks about one paticular simple play that sums up why Brady is so good. The video is filled with nice little bits about brady too from both ray lewis and revis.

There is also a highlight of a nice deep ball not thrown to randy moss. I agree that Moss was a spectacular player for the patriots but not every single deep catch moss made were outstanding unbelivable catches. Brady put alot right in there with pin point accuracy. I often wonder how great his numbers would be if he had moss longer like Montana and young with rice or Manning with Harrison.

I also think its a testament to how good Tom Brady is that you can drop Moss during the season, bring back branch, have two rookie tight ends and still put up the numbers he did last year along with being named the first unanimous mvp in nfl history.

[GeorgeSteele]

^ I agree with Ray Lewis that he's obviously a great QB, I just don't think he's the best of his era (Manning), the best now (Rodgers) and definitely not the best I've seen play (I'd rank him behind Montana, Elway, Young, Marino and, yes, Favre). 

And I'm sure he's thrown many good deep balls, he just can't do it consistently like I think the historically great passers have.  And as valuable as he is to the Pats, I have a hard time believing they'd go 2-14 without him the way the Colts did without Manning this year.  Rex Ryan, one of the best defensive coaches in the league, said flat out that Brady is not as good as Manning, and I don't think he was just blowing his usual hot air. 

Sandman, the career YPA I think is due to 2 things -- his excellent completion rate and the Moss years. 

[sandman]

^ I agree with Ray Lewis that he's obviously a great QB, I just don't think he's the best of his era (Manning), the best now (Rodgers) and definitely not the best I've seen play (I'd rank him behind Montana, Elway, Young, Marino and, yes, Favre). 

And I'm sure he's thrown many good deep balls, he just can't do it consistently like I think the historically great passers have.  And as valuable as he is to the Pats, I have a hard time believing they'd go 2-14 without him the way the Colts did without Manning this year.  Rex Ryan, one of the best defensive coaches in the league, said flat out that Brady is not as good as Manning, and I don't think he was just blowing his usual hot air. 

Sandman, the career YPA I think is due to 2 things -- his excellent completion rate and the Moss years. 

that's like saying Montana's stats are due to Rice. it doesn't matter what they are due to. brady's and montana's completion rate are essentially the same as well. the west coast offense is all about short passes. montana benefited greatly from his WRs and RBs taking short passes and turing them into big gains.

like i said, it pointless to discuss it now with so much on the line this sunday. if he wins, he'll have the most rings, a ton of awards, a ton of stats, and a ton of intangibles (great leader, a bunch of comebacks, clutch performances, etc.). the large majority of football fans and experts will have him and montana in their top 2 QBs. his legacy as arguably the greatest ever will be set for now. but that's a big IF, cause i think the giants D-line is just too good and the pats D not good enough.

[GeorgeSteele]

Here's the strange thing to me about Brady's career -- I think that Brady post-2004 is much better than Brady 2001-2004 when he won all those SBs.  I think a lot of people would agree with me on that, as he simply was not asked to, and did not, carry the team in those years as he has since then.  So, to me, the true test of whether he is in fact the 'winner' everyone calls him, is if he can win a SB with a mediocre defense.  Brees, P Manning, and Rodgers have all done that.  Until he does, I don't think he's in the same class as those guys. 

[Sober_times]

^ I agree with Ray Lewis that he's obviously a great QB, I just don't think he's the best of his era (Manning), the best now (Rodgers) and definitely not the best I've seen play (I'd rank him behind Montana, Elway, Young, Marino and, yes, Favre). 

And I'm sure he's thrown many good deep balls, he just can't do it consistently like I think the historically great passers have.  And as valuable as he is to the Pats, I have a hard time believing they'd go 2-14 without him the way the Colts did without Manning this year.  Rex Ryan, one of the best defensive coaches in the league, said flat out that Brady is not as good as Manning, and I don't think he was just blowing his usual hot air. 

Sandman, the career YPA I think is due to 2 things -- his excellent completion rate and the Moss years. 

As for YPA, his moss years were 2007, 2009. Which were 8.3 and 7.8 respectivley. Those non-moss years were horrible at 7.8 in 03 and 04 and 8.6 ypa this year. So his ypa is comparable to Montana. Brady throws an acurate consistent deep ball throughout his career he just never had great recievers around him to take advantage of defenses like Montana (rice, taylor) Manning (Harrison, Wayne) so the option wasn't always open for Tom Brady. Besides when was Montana ever known for his deep ball? Brady's years with Moss get maginified because of the beast that is moss but brady threw deep before him and has thrown deep after him just not as much.

Throwing a nice deep ball does not make or break a qb. Otherwise Jeff George would be a hall of famer.

Regards to colts going 2-14(this year) and the patriots going 11-5(08) without Brady. Two totally different situations. The Patriots had a team that went 18-1 the previous season and were a couple plays from a perfect season. The colts struggled to go 10-7(including play-offs). So without their best player it was an 8 win difference for the colts. The Patriots went 18-1 with brady, 11-5 without..a 5 win difference, 7 including play-offs. Only a 3 or 1 game difference from the colts without manning depending how you want to look at it. So I would argue both are very valuable to their respecitive teams and that the patriots had a better team in 08 than the colts did in 11. If it happened today theres no way that horrible pats defense keeps them in games like that 08 team did.

And Ryan not blowing his usual hot air? All he ever does is blow hot air. I don't blame him either, he's in the largest media market playing second fiddle to the patriots AND the giants.

As for Tom's Legacy sandman is right. IF he wins he will be looked as a better qb. But even if he doesn't win history will still look favorbly to Tom Brady. His career isn't over yet. I'm hoping hes got 3 or 4 more years left in him. And when its all over Tom Brady will always be mentioned in the conversation of the best ever just like Elway, Young, Montana, Marino, Favre, Peyton Manning. You don't win 2 mvps, 2 superbowl mvps, go to 6 afc championships, 5 superbowls, win 3, set the records he has and not be in the conversation. That Rodgers guy, he's good but lets wait and see if he does it for as many years as these guys have.

Here's the strange thing to me about Brady's career -- I think that Brady post-2004 is much better than Brady 2001-2004 when he won all those SBs.  I think a lot of people would agree with me on that, as he simply was not asked to, and did not, carry the team in those years as he has since then.  So, to me, the true test of whether he is in fact the 'winner' everyone calls him, is if he can win a SB with a mediocre defense.  Brees, P Manning, and Rodgers have all done that.  Until he does, I don't think he's in the same class as those guys. 

This statement makes perfect sense because Montana didn't win a superbowl with a great defense and outstanding talent around him. Because Elway didn't win a superbowl with a good defense and an outstanding running game. Because Brees didn't win the superbowl against a crappy defense and had a defense that set a league record in turn overs. Because the colts defense didn't hugely step up in the play-offs that season and got the benifit of playing Rex Grossman.

All great qbs have had their fair share of good and bad play-off performances. Hell, if it wasn't for the colts defense they never go to a superbowl in 06. Manning played horribly leading up to that game(against kc and baltimore, above average against the pats) and didn't have that great of a superbowl either.

[LongGoneDay]

Here's the strange thing to me about Brady's career -- I think that Brady post-2004 is much better than Brady 2001-2004 when he won all those SBs.  I think a lot of people would agree with me on that, as he simply was not asked to, and did not, carry the team in those years as he has since then.  So, to me, the true test of whether he is in fact the 'winner' everyone calls him, is if he can win a SB with a mediocre defense.  Brees, P Manning, and Rodgers have all done that.  Until he does, I don't think he's in the same class as those guys. 

He hung 32 or something on Carolina. He has the record for most SB completions. He wasn't exactly along for the ride like you seem to suggest early on.
Brady has been consistently good then great his entire career. It's his supporting cast that has had it's ups and downs. The Pats have not drafted well, and have really struggled building on the defensive end. He's not a dink and dunk QB either. That's been over since 2001. That used to be a knock on him. People said he couldn't put up the big numbers Manning did. When he finally got the weapons, he put up bigger numbers. The best part of his game is that he takes what the defense gives him. All due respect to Favre, but if the guy had 1/10th of the brain or discipline of Brady, he would have had a lot more than 1 SB. Brady doesn't need to do anything to get to Brees and Rodgers level. As great as they are, it's Brees and Rodgers that have some work to do to catch up.

[GeorgeSteele]

Here's the strange thing to me about Brady's career -- I think that Brady post-2004 is much better than Brady 2001-2004 when he won all those SBs.  I think a lot of people would agree with me on that, as he simply was not asked to, and did not, carry the team in those years as he has since then.  So, to me, the true test of whether he is in fact the 'winner' everyone calls him, is if he can win a SB with a mediocre defense.  Brees, P Manning, and Rodgers have all done that.  Until he does, I don't think he's in the same class as those guys. 

He hung 32 or something on Carolina. He has the record for most SB completions. He wasn't exactly along for the ride like you seem to suggest early on.
Brady has been consistently good then great his entire career. It's his supporting cast that has had it's ups and downs. The Pats have not drafted well, and have really struggled building on the defensive end. He's not a dink and dunk QB either. That's been over since 2001. That used to be a knock on him. People said he couldn't put up the big numbers Manning did. When he finally got the weapons, he put up bigger numbers. The best part of his game is that he takes what the defense gives him. All due respect to Favre, but if the guy had 1/10th of the brain or discipline of Brady, he would have had a lot more than 1 SB. Brady doesn't need to do anything to get to Brees and Rodgers level. As great as they are, it's Brees and Rodgers that have some work to do to catch up.

The point is that the Pats defense was an elite unit the years they've won and mediocre in the years since.  They haven't won it without that defense, even though Brady is better than he was then -- but not quite good enough to win with an average or weak defense.  Other QBs have, he hasn't.  And sorry, but those Colt and Saint defenses were not very good, especially when stacked against pretty much any SB-winning defense.

Basically, every team that has won the SB had a dominant defense -- until 1999, when Kurt Warner won with the Rams (and then almost did it again with Arizona; Warner is obscenely underrated by the way; if not for his concussions mid-career, we'd be talking about him being among the all-time greats).  Since then, a few other teams have won without dominant defenses, but the Pats are not in that group.  This Sunday will be there chance. 

[Sober_times]

Here's the strange thing to me about Brady's career -- I think that Brady post-2004 is much better than Brady 2001-2004 when he won all those SBs.  I think a lot of people would agree with me on that, as he simply was not asked to, and did not, carry the team in those years as he has since then.  So, to me, the true test of whether he is in fact the 'winner' everyone calls him, is if he can win a SB with a mediocre defense.  Brees, P Manning, and Rodgers have all done that.  Until he does, I don't think he's in the same class as those guys. 

He hung 32 or something on Carolina. He has the record for most SB completions. He wasn't exactly along for the ride like you seem to suggest early on.
Brady has been consistently good then great his entire career. It's his supporting cast that has had it's ups and downs. The Pats have not drafted well, and have really struggled building on the defensive end. He's not a dink and dunk QB either. That's been over since 2001. That used to be a knock on him. People said he couldn't put up the big numbers Manning did. When he finally got the weapons, he put up bigger numbers. The best part of his game is that he takes what the defense gives him. All due respect to Favre, but if the guy had 1/10th of the brain or discipline of Brady, he would have had a lot more than 1 SB. Brady doesn't need to do anything to get to Brees and Rodgers level. As great as they are, it's Brees and Rodgers that have some work to do to catch up.

The point is that the Pats defense was an elite unit the years they've won and mediocre in the years since.  They haven't won it without that defense, even though Brady is better than he was then -- but not quite good enough to win with an average or weak defense.  Other QBs have, he hasn't.  And sorry, but those Colt and Saint defenses were not very good, especially when stacked against pretty much any SB-winning defense.

Basically, every team that has won the SB had a dominant defense -- until 1999, when Kurt Warner won with the Rams (and then almost did it again with Arizona; Warner is obscenely underrated by the way; if not for his concussions mid-career, we'd be talking about him being among the all-time greats).  Since then, a few other teams have won without dominant defenses, but the Pats are not in that group.  This Sunday will be there chance. 

Nice that you mentioned the Rams and that horrible defense that was ranked 6 in yards allowed and 4th points score. I like Rodgers mention earlier with that 5th ranked packers defense in yards and 2nd in points allowed in 2010. By your own theory both Warner and Rodgers aren't worthy.

Too say that the colts defense in 06 was horrible is absolutely correct. Until the play-offs. When manning threw 1 td and 3 picks against kc and defense had to hold for them to win. When manning threw 0 td and 2 picks and barely any yardage against ravens that defense had to hold. When pats got big lead that defense had to hold for a comeback. When the Bears jumped up and had the lead was it mannings great performance that got them back in it. No.

The Saints had a bad defense but again its not like it was Brees who got them to the superbowl all by himself in that play-off run. Favre's 2 picks and several fumbles by the vikings recovered by that saints defense had nothing to do with? The Manning Interception, which was both a great play and bad pass in the superbowl had nothing to do with them winning?

[pilferk]

like i said, it pointless to discuss it now with so much on the line this sunday. if he wins, he'll have the most rings

He'll be TIED for the most, no?  Montana was 4-0.....Brady is, so far, 3-1. 

[GeorgeSteele]

Nice that you mentioned the Rams and that horrible defense that was ranked 6 in yards allowed and 4th points score. I like Rodgers mention earlier with that 5th ranked packers defense in yards and 2nd in points allowed in 2010. By your own theory both Warner and Rodgers aren't worthy.

Too say that the colts defense in 06 was horrible is absolutely correct. Until the play-offs. When manning threw 1 td and 3 picks against kc and defense had to hold for them to win. When manning threw 0 td and 2 picks and barely any yardage against ravens that defense had to hold. When pats got big lead that defense had to hold for a comeback. When the Bears jumped up and had the lead was it mannings great performance that got them back in it. No.

The Saints had a bad defense but again its not like it was Brees who got them to the superbowl all by himself in that play-off run. Favre's 2 picks and several fumbles by the vikings recovered by that saints defense had nothing to do with? The Manning Interception, which was both a great play and bad pass in the superbowl had nothing to do with them winning?

Didn't say they were horrible, but comparatively, those defenses were beyond weak next to defenses of teams that had won SBs to that point.  Nobody is confusing the '99 Rams, '06 Colts or '11 Packers defenses with that of the 01-04 Pats, that's laughable.  In any event, it's not exactly a stretch to say that any of Brees, Manning or Rodgers would have won with the 01-04 Pats.  But since then, they've all had their opportunities to win without having the benefit of great defenses, but of that class, only Brady hasn't won yet.  

[Sober_times]

Nice that you mentioned the Rams and that horrible defense that was ranked 6 in yards allowed and 4th points score. I like Rodgers mention earlier with that 5th ranked packers defense in yards and 2nd in points allowed in 2010. By your own theory both Warner and Rodgers aren't worthy.

Too say that the colts defense in 06 was horrible is absolutely correct. Until the play-offs. When manning threw 1 td and 3 picks against kc and defense had to hold for them to win. When manning threw 0 td and 2 picks and barely any yardage against ravens that defense had to hold. When pats got big lead that defense had to hold for a comeback. When the Bears jumped up and had the lead was it mannings great performance that got them back in it. No.

The Saints had a bad defense but again its not like it was Brees who got them to the superbowl all by himself in that play-off run. Favre's 2 picks and several fumbles by the vikings recovered by that saints defense had nothing to do with? The Manning Interception, which was both a great play and bad pass in the superbowl had nothing to do with them winning?

Didn't say they were horrible, but comparatively, those defenses were beyond weak next to defenses of teams that had won SBs to that point.  Nobody is confusing the '99 Rams, '06 Colts or '11 Packers defenses with that of the 01-04 Pats, that's laughable.  In any event, it's not exactly a stretch to say that any of Brees, Manning or Rodgers would have won with the 01-04 Pats.  But since then, they've all had their opportunities to win without having the benefit of great defenses, but of that class, only Brady hasn't won yet.  

Yes lets just completly ignore the colts postseason defensive performances and the bad performance by manning. Lets also completly ignore that Packer defense that was very good in 2010 statistcly just like rams in 99. Lets ignore the fact that the saints defense helped them get to a superbowl against the vikings in the nfc championship.

Lets also ignore brady's great play in the second half of the snow bowl in 01(yeah tuck rule helped but he had a hell of a second half in that game.) The calm cool collected brady who drove them down into field goal range with no timeouts at the end of the 01 superbowl. Oh, and lets forget his memorable performances in superbowl 38 and just assume any qb could do what he did with the weapons he had.

I would say in 2011 where the packers had the worst ranked defense in yards allowed and the patriots were number 2  Brady did enough to get his team to the superbowl. Where was Rodgers? You can't say the packers defense in 10 was bad when it stacks up statistcly with other good defenses. I'll give you Manning with his poor defense. But he did what brady did last year. Performed good in the regular season and performed poorly in the postseason. Difference was the colts defense stepped up against the chiefs and ravens in 06 where as the pats defense didn't against the jets in 10 but did against the ravens this year.

[GeorgeSteele]

Nice that you mentioned the Rams and that horrible defense that was ranked 6 in yards allowed and 4th points score. I like Rodgers mention earlier with that 5th ranked packers defense in yards and 2nd in points allowed in 2010. By your own theory both Warner and Rodgers aren't worthy.

Too say that the colts defense in 06 was horrible is absolutely correct. Until the play-offs. When manning threw 1 td and 3 picks against kc and defense had to hold for them to win. When manning threw 0 td and 2 picks and barely any yardage against ravens that defense had to hold. When pats got big lead that defense had to hold for a comeback. When the Bears jumped up and had the lead was it mannings great performance that got them back in it. No.

The Saints had a bad defense but again its not like it was Brees who got them to the superbowl all by himself in that play-off run. Favre's 2 picks and several fumbles by the vikings recovered by that saints defense had nothing to do with? The Manning Interception, which was both a great play and bad pass in the superbowl had nothing to do with them winning?

Didn't say they were horrible, but comparatively, those defenses were beyond weak next to defenses of teams that had won SBs to that point.  Nobody is confusing the '99 Rams, '06 Colts or '11 Packers defenses with that of the 01-04 Pats, that's laughable.  In any event, it's not exactly a stretch to say that any of Brees, Manning or Rodgers would have won with the 01-04 Pats.  But since then, they've all had their opportunities to win without having the benefit of great defenses, but of that class, only Brady hasn't won yet.  

Yes lets just completly ignore the colts postseason defensive performances and the bad performance by manning. Lets also completly ignore that Packer defense that was very good in 2010 statistcly just like rams in 99. Lets ignore the fact that the saints defense helped them get to a superbowl against the vikings in the nfc championship.

Lets also ignore brady's great play in the second half of the snow bowl in 01(yeah tuck rule helped but he had a hell of a second half in that game.) The calm cool collected brady who drove them down into field goal range with no timeouts at the end of the 01 superbowl. Oh, and lets forget his memorable performances in superbowl 38 and just assume any qb could do what he did with the weapons he had.

I would say in 2011 where the packers had the worst ranked defense in yards allowed and the patriots were number 2  Brady did enough to get his team to the superbowl. Where was Rodgers? You can't say the packers defense in 10 was bad when it stacks up statistcly with other good defenses. I'll give you Manning with his poor defense. But he did what brady did last year. Performed good in the regular season and performed poorly in the postseason. Difference was the colts defense stepped up against the chiefs and ravens in 06 where as the pats defense didn't against the jets in 10 but did against the ravens this year.

I'm not ignoring any of your points, just don't feel the need to address every single thing you say, especially when the overall point remains -- a small handful of QBs have won SBs in this era without dominant defenses and Brady is not one of them.  That is all.  Maybe that changes this Sunday, but I doubt it. 

Edit -- to show I'm not being ridiculously obstinate, I'll give you that snow game, that 2nd half was as good as I've seen any QB play ever.

[Sober_times]

Nice that you mentioned the Rams and that horrible defense that was ranked 6 in yards allowed and 4th points score. I like Rodgers mention earlier with that 5th ranked packers defense in yards and 2nd in points allowed in 2010. By your own theory both Warner and Rodgers aren't worthy.

Too say that the colts defense in 06 was horrible is absolutely correct. Until the play-offs. When manning threw 1 td and 3 picks against kc and defense had to hold for them to win. When manning threw 0 td and 2 picks and barely any yardage against ravens that defense had to hold. When pats got big lead that defense had to hold for a comeback. When the Bears jumped up and had the lead was it mannings great performance that got them back in it. No.

The Saints had a bad defense but again its not like it was Brees who got them to the superbowl all by himself in that play-off run. Favre's 2 picks and several fumbles by the vikings recovered by that saints defense had nothing to do with? The Manning Interception, which was both a great play and bad pass in the superbowl had nothing to do with them winning?

Didn't say they were horrible, but comparatively, those defenses were beyond weak next to defenses of teams that had won SBs to that point.  Nobody is confusing the '99 Rams, '06 Colts or '11 Packers defenses with that of the 01-04 Pats, that's laughable.  In any event, it's not exactly a stretch to say that any of Brees, Manning or Rodgers would have won with the 01-04 Pats.  But since then, they've all had their opportunities to win without having the benefit of great defenses, but of that class, only Brady hasn't won yet.  

Yes lets just completly ignore the colts postseason defensive performances and the bad performance by manning. Lets also completly ignore that Packer defense that was very good in 2010 statistcly just like rams in 99. Lets ignore the fact that the saints defense helped them get to a superbowl against the vikings in the nfc championship.

Lets also ignore brady's great play in the second half of the snow bowl in 01(yeah tuck rule helped but he had a hell of a second half in that game.) The calm cool collected brady who drove them down into field goal range with no timeouts at the end of the 01 superbowl. Oh, and lets forget his memorable performances in superbowl 38 and just assume any qb could do what he did with the weapons he had.

I would say in 2011 where the packers had the worst ranked defense in yards allowed and the patriots were number 2  Brady did enough to get his team to the superbowl. Where was Rodgers? You can't say the packers defense in 10 was bad when it stacks up statistcly with other good defenses. I'll give you Manning with his poor defense. But he did what brady did last year. Performed good in the regular season and performed poorly in the postseason. Difference was the colts defense stepped up against the chiefs and ravens in 06 where as the pats defense didn't against the jets in 10 but did against the ravens this year.

I'm not ignoring any of your points, just don't feel the need to address every single thing you say, especially when the overall point remains -- a small handful of QBs have won SBs in this era without dominant defenses and Brady is not one of them.  That is all.  Maybe that changes this Sunday, but I doubt it. 

Edit -- to show I'm not being ridiculously obstinate, I'll give you that snow game, that 2nd half was as good as I've seen any QB play ever.

If the point is plainly that Manning and Brees won a superbowl with their defenses playing poorly in the regular season and brady has not I'll concede that, done. Rodgers won it with a good defense though.

I just add that both Manning and Bree's defenses stepped up in the post season to allow those teams to advance to a superbowl and without the play of those defenses neither team would of made it.



This has been a nice distraction on a long work day and I am usually at work when posting so if I get long in the tooth forgive me people, im just trying to fill the time when im wasting my companies. 19 hours, get off in an hour. I've spent the last 8 monitoring the IT system(nothings gonna go wrong cuz i built it,lol) and they wont let me leave. 

[D]

Brady greatest QB in NFL History setting up Field Goals.

[sandman]

like i said, it pointless to discuss it now with so much on the line this sunday. if he wins, he'll have the most rings

He'll be TIED for the most, no?  Montana was 4-0.....Brady is, so far, 3-1. 

that's correct. i had already mentioned in my previous post that montana was a "perfect 4-0." as is bradshaw. they are the only two with 4 wins. brady is one of only 2 QBs to go to 5 SBs - elway is the other.