There is no way I could concede the point because Belichick still wins without him.
To some degree (and this is I think the debate point) you have to give the HC and system credit for his success. How much of the credit for the Patriots dominance do you give to Belichick and his overall system. I'm guessing Brady on the Giants has similar stats/win % to Eli and probably loses much more time to injury (hell he might even be retired already).
Peyton rode that defense because he was broken down, further showing how much the sport is a team game. But when he was healthy and went to Denver in a completely new situation, he smashed records.
I'm just saying that that really is a stat padding Superbowl for him.
2-2 in Championship games does look considerably better than the 1-2 that he would have retired with without it. Peyton for a loooooooong time was labeled a big game choker. Tom Brady has NEVER had that label.
Peyton Manning played pretty bad in the Superbowl he actually won. Tom Brady got his team the lead with under 2 minutes in both Superbowls he lost. As somebody else said, Tom Brady is two Eli Manning miracles away from having 6 rings right now, working on 7. As great as Manning was, he just doesn't have that and something needs to separate guys.
Big game choker analysis on Peyton/Mr. Clutch is really such an interesting discussion. Remember the AFC Championship game with the Big Ben tackle to save the game? Remember what followed that tackle? Peyton driving his team into FG range in the clutch and his idiot kicker missing. Thus continued his "choke" legacy while Viniatieri drilled the same kicks for Brady. Completely random and unrelated to relative skill set of the two QBs. And how about the game for Brady against the Chargers where he literally threw the game losing interception only to have them inexplicably fumble it back to the Pats? These random moments are just a snipper of why looking just at stats or big game results is such an imperfect measure.
Manning was one and done 9 times in the playoffs in his career.
Although he clearly benefited from playing under the GOAT for head coaches, his remarkable level of play well into his late 30s, his leadership, his fitness/diet regimen, his ability to make marginal players look like all stars, accuracy, toughness, clutch play, arm strength and ability to diagnose what the defense is doing and wisely getting the ball into the right hands makes him the best of all time.
But if the Pats win, and Brady is MVP, or in MVP consideration, then he finally wins the argument.
He was about as good as Big Ben was when he won his first SB, so throw that one out in comparison to Montana, and they should have lost to Seattle, so, that Lombardi was a gift, even though he played great, we all know SB titles weigh heavily in this conversation. He would have 3 at this point to Montana's 2.
He wins, and plays well, he stands alone.
Does anyone honestly doubt that Tom Brady is a better QB now then he was when they won 3 out of 4 SBS?
The reason he never had the same label as Peyton did is that. Yet, does anyone doubt that if Tom Brady was the Colts QB from 2001 to 2004 that they wouldn't have won SBs let alone 3 of 4?
If you could somehow flip Brady's career, imagine what he would have been labeled?
The last 10 playoffs, Brady has went to 3 SBs and won just 1. He lost at 18-0. During that time he has been defeated in 3 AFC title games by Peyton Manning, who won 2 SBs. Including one game where he had a 21-3 lead and threw an interception to end it in the final minute.
His lone SB win was a game that was was really lost. It was a fluke play made by his defense and better clock management and play calling would have resulted in a third loss. I mean the game was out of his hands. It was lost and he had no say in the final outcome.
During this stretch they had lost 4 AFC title games and were knocked out 3 times at home.
He was 0-5 vs Mannings and they were all in the title games and SBs.
The reputation is influenced by previous history, which he obviously earned.
Yet, is there any doubt that Tom Brady has been a better QB for all of the above than he was during his 3 of 4 SB wins?
You can't just evaluate on things like SB wins. Its obviously a big and important factor but not the only one.
I don't say this to try and take away from Tom Brady's success over the last 10 years. He has been incredible and tied for the best ever. Its just to take away from simple-minded arguments that reduce complexity to one factor.
As noted the four coaches, even Dungee is a borderline great coach to me. Certainly his replacement was useless in Manning's scone SB where Sean Peyton outcoached him. As for titles, Manning lost some heartbreaking championship games including the loss in Denver to Balt on the horrific D play with time expiring. Perhaps the worst playoff loss I have even seen, except for the Giants blundered field goal against SF.
defenses always seem to step up no matter who is on the roster, who is hurt, who was recently released, etc. That is a function of Belichick's mastery of team building and team management. It's the same thing on offense. Brady is excellent, no doubt about it. I just credit a LOT of his success to team success, reflective of having Belichick running the show.
Here's an interesting bit of trivia. Rodgers has now been eliminated from the playoffs 3 times where his opponent scored at least 44 points. You know how many times in Brady's entire regular season and playoff career that his opponent scored at least 44 points? ZERO.
Over Rodgers' 7 playoff losses, his opponent scored an average of 36.3 points per game. In Brady's ENTIRE regular season and postseason career, his opponent scored 36 or more points only 7 total times.
Are these numbers cherry-picked? Sure. But it still shows how QB "success" is out of any QB's control.
RE: Let's deconstruct Brady they way they do Peyton
Does anyone honestly doubt that Tom Brady is a better QB now then he was when they won 3 out of 4 SBS?
The reason he never had the same label as Peyton did is that. Yet, does anyone doubt that if Tom Brady was the Colts QB from 2001 to 2004 that they wouldn't have won SBs let alone 3 of 4?
If you could somehow flip Brady's career, imagine what he would have been labeled?
The last 10 playoffs, Brady has went to 3 SBs and won just 1. He lost at 18-0. During that time he has been defeated in 3 AFC title games by Peyton Manning, who won 2 SBs. Including one game where he had a 21-3 lead and threw an interception to end it in the final minute.
His lone SB win was a game that was was really lost. It was a fluke play made by his defense and better clock management and play calling would have resulted in a third loss. I mean the game was out of his hands. It was lost and he had no say in the final outcome.
During this stretch they had lost 4 AFC title games and were knocked out 3 times at home.
He was 0-5 vs Mannings and they were all in the title games and SBs.
The reputation is influenced by previous history, which he obviously earned.
Yet, is there any doubt that Tom Brady has been a better QB for all of the above than he was during his 3 of 4 SB wins?
You can't just evaluate on things like SB wins. Its obviously a big and important factor but not the only one.
I don't say this to try and take away from Tom Brady's success over the last 10 years. He has been incredible and tied for the best ever. Its just to take away from simple-minded arguments that reduce complexity to one factor.
It's not a simple minded argument, it's a tiebreaker.
Something has to separate the cream of the crop.
Brady and Peyton have all the records and success. If you're picking a definitive number 1, something has to be the tiebreaker.
In my opinion, playoff success and Championships is that tiebreaker.
I don't believe that to be simple minded.
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Passing Yards
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in TD's (both have had the NFL record for most TD's in a season)
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Completion Percentage
Regular Season Records:
Brady: 183 - 52
Manning: 186 - 79
If you're not going to look at playoff records and Championships, how the hell are you going to separate them?
Watch him clip the Falcons wings and show a lacrosse player at WR how to get open. Brady is a great student, and egoless IMO, but it's the coach who maximizes the potential.
I posted this in another thread but it applies here:
Can some team from the AFC East RISE UP JUST FUCKING ONCE and win that division? The Jets, Bills and Dolphins should be ashamed of themselves. I would be embarrassed if I rooted for any of them. Win a fucking division just once in a decade for fucks sake. ONE time! ONCE!!!!!!
Fuck Brady and his perfect QB RATING and life. Fuck the Pats. Fuck the owner. Fuck those spoiled fair weather fans that, outside of a small percentage wouldn't know loyalty from their asses.
One division title in a year where Brady was hurt for the year????? ONE over 16 years???? Wait, TWO...sorry...
That division is an abomination. Every other team should be fucking relegated. Shame on them all. Disgrace. The Pats are beyond great but man, do they have help. They play in a twinkie of a division.
Does anyone honestly doubt that Tom Brady is a better QB now then he was when they won 3 out of 4 SBS?
The reason he never had the same label as Peyton did is that. Yet, does anyone doubt that if Tom Brady was the Colts QB from 2001 to 2004 that they wouldn't have won SBs let alone 3 of 4?
If you could somehow flip Brady's career, imagine what he would have been labeled?
The last 10 playoffs, Brady has went to 3 SBs and won just 1. He lost at 18-0. During that time he has been defeated in 3 AFC title games by Peyton Manning, who won 2 SBs. Including one game where he had a 21-3 lead and threw an interception to end it in the final minute.
His lone SB win was a game that was was really lost. It was a fluke play made by his defense and better clock management and play calling would have resulted in a third loss. I mean the game was out of his hands. It was lost and he had no say in the final outcome.
During this stretch they had lost 4 AFC title games and were knocked out 3 times at home.
He was 0-5 vs Mannings and they were all in the title games and SBs.
The reputation is influenced by previous history, which he obviously earned.
Yet, is there any doubt that Tom Brady has been a better QB for all of the above than he was during his 3 of 4 SB wins?
You can't just evaluate on things like SB wins. Its obviously a big and important factor but not the only one.
I don't say this to try and take away from Tom Brady's success over the last 10 years. He has been incredible and tied for the best ever. Its just to take away from simple-minded arguments that reduce complexity to one factor.
It's not a simple minded argument, it's a tiebreaker.
Something has to separate the cream of the crop.
Brady and Peyton have all the records and success. If you're picking a definitive number 1, something has to be the tiebreaker.
In my opinion, playoff success and Championships is that tiebreaker.
I don't believe that to be simple minded.
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Passing Yards
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in TD's (both have had the NFL record for most TD's in a season)
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Completion Percentage
Regular Season Records:
Brady: 183 - 52
Manning: 186 - 79
If you're not going to look at playoff records and Championships, how the hell are you going to separate them?
In those categories you list- Peyton Manning has the clear edge. He is the all time leader in those categories. He has 10000 more pass yards, he has almost 100 more TDs. He has the single season TD record. He has more MVPs, etc.
Of none of these stats and these kind of individual stats does Tom Brady hold an advantage over Peyton Manning.
You expanded to the top 5 all-time, to include Brady. Because Peyton isnt top 5 in any of them. He is the all time leader in them.
Its not a tiebreaker.
Your view on the postseason is what gets you to a tie and then you give the edge to Brady based on that factor lone, which you judge to be more significant
Does anyone honestly doubt that Tom Brady is a better QB now then he was when they won 3 out of 4 SBS?
The reason he never had the same label as Peyton did is that. Yet, does anyone doubt that if Tom Brady was the Colts QB from 2001 to 2004 that they wouldn't have won SBs let alone 3 of 4?
If you could somehow flip Brady's career, imagine what he would have been labeled?
The last 10 playoffs, Brady has went to 3 SBs and won just 1. He lost at 18-0. During that time he has been defeated in 3 AFC title games by Peyton Manning, who won 2 SBs. Including one game where he had a 21-3 lead and threw an interception to end it in the final minute.
His lone SB win was a game that was was really lost. It was a fluke play made by his defense and better clock management and play calling would have resulted in a third loss. I mean the game was out of his hands. It was lost and he had no say in the final outcome.
During this stretch they had lost 4 AFC title games and were knocked out 3 times at home.
He was 0-5 vs Mannings and they were all in the title games and SBs.
The reputation is influenced by previous history, which he obviously earned.
Yet, is there any doubt that Tom Brady has been a better QB for all of the above than he was during his 3 of 4 SB wins?
You can't just evaluate on things like SB wins. Its obviously a big and important factor but not the only one.
I don't say this to try and take away from Tom Brady's success over the last 10 years. He has been incredible and tied for the best ever. Its just to take away from simple-minded arguments that reduce complexity to one factor.
It's not a simple minded argument, it's a tiebreaker.
Something has to separate the cream of the crop.
Brady and Peyton have all the records and success. If you're picking a definitive number 1, something has to be the tiebreaker.
In my opinion, playoff success and Championships is that tiebreaker.
I don't believe that to be simple minded.
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Passing Yards
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in TD's (both have had the NFL record for most TD's in a season)
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Completion Percentage
Regular Season Records:
Brady: 183 - 52
Manning: 186 - 79
If you're not going to look at playoff records and Championships, how the hell are you going to separate them?
and for me, the postseason is a tiebreaker, what separates them. It looks to be similar for a lot of people, as well.
You can't just say "saying Brady has won more Superbowls and playoff games is simple minded". That would be like me saying your argument there about the being the all time leader is simple minded (it's not).
But in a subjective debate such as "best ever", it just depends what the individual making the argument holds in higher regard.
He may play 3-5 more years and make 2 more SB's and throw for 4000 yards each of those seasons
Neither he nor Hoodie show any signs of slowing down or easing up. That team looks like it is on the ascent...especially on defense.
If Brady makes 1 more SB after this and wins this one or that one....then arguing he is not the GOAT becomes really difficult
That to me is the hard part to comprehend. He is not done yet as an elite QB leading an elite team and an elite organization.
I think arguing against him as the GOAT in more five years is going to be a matter of not liking something he said or jealousy or just to be contrarian.
Im sorry but they will get to the SB again after this. Maybe twice. You have to be great ( and surrounded by great) to put yourself in such a position
that Brady's teams have won more. The argument against is how much that also reflects on Belichick and the entire organization. vis a vis how much credit we just give to Brady.
Bradshaw won 4 Super Bowls. I have yet to see anyone mention him on here as one of the three best ever.
They have not had an equal regular season career. By every measure you could come up with, Manning has been more successful in the regular season.
Brady has had tremendous regular season success as well, just not as much as Manning.
You are trying to act as if the world are equal in that regard. They are not. This is why Manning has more MVPs, more Pro Bowls, holds every major all time QB record.
Brady, however, has had more postseason success than Manning.
Manning has also had tremendous postseason success but not as much as Brady.
Now, why I call t simpleminded is that the bulk of Brady's postseason success and the yard stick for why you and others consider him better is based on the 3 to 4 stretch in the early part of his career.
The subsequent 10 year stretch, when Brady was actually a better QB, has seen basically an even Brady and Manning. Brady would have to win this upcoming game to match Peyton in the last 10 years. Although, he would still be 0-3 against him in the playoffs.
Brady would be viewed quite differently if we had only judged on his last 10 years. His reputation in the early part of his career was as the unflappable QB who could lead the late game rally and deliver the win. He has actually been unable to do that in the last 10 years and has been the victim of that - especially from the Manning Brothers. He has actually thrown many a back breaking INT during this period like vs Denver in 2005 or the Colts in the AFC title game and some others.
I'm not trying to discredit what Brady did in the first 4 years. I just don't find it a complex argument to say this period is what makes him better than Manning and especially when I think it's indisputable that he is better now then he was yet found less success. Its a team game and a team sport. The QB an unusually large share of the outcome as does HC but its not the only factor. I think a QB has to win a SB at some point (which is why I rule out Marino) and they both have but I dont think winning more is the final measure.
I honestly cant say who is better. They are both unbelievable and I think equally great. I think both superior to everyone else.
that Brady's teams have won more. The argument against is how much that also reflects on Belichick and the entire organization. vis a vis how much credit we just give to Brady.
Bradshaw won 4 Super Bowls. I have yet to see anyone mention him on here as one of the three best ever.
Bradshaw doesn't have the stats, the records, or the League MVP's to be considered.
Brady is the total package. Peyton as well. Montana is there, too, but can't compare eras, but he was a guy that had the stats, the records, the MVP's, and the Championships. Those three guys are the ones that had it all.
They have not had an equal regular season career. By every measure you could come up with, Manning has been more successful in the regular season.
Brady has had tremendous regular season success as well, just not as much as Manning.
You are trying to act as if the world are equal in that regard. They are not. This is why Manning has more MVPs, more Pro Bowls, holds every major all time QB record.
Brady, however, has had more postseason success than Manning.
Manning has also had tremendous postseason success but not as much as Brady.
Now, why I call t simpleminded is that the bulk of Brady's postseason success and the yard stick for why you and others consider him better is based on the 3 to 4 stretch in the early part of his career.
The subsequent 10 year stretch, when Brady was actually a better QB, has seen basically an even Brady and Manning. Brady would have to win this upcoming game to match Peyton in the last 10 years. Although, he would still be 0-3 against him in the playoffs.
Brady would be viewed quite differently if we had only judged on his last 10 years. His reputation in the early part of his career was as the unflappable QB who could lead the late game rally and deliver the win. He has actually been unable to do that in the last 10 years and has been the victim of that - especially from the Manning Brothers. He has actually thrown many a back breaking INT during this period like vs Denver in 2005 or the Colts in the AFC title game and some others.
I'm not trying to discredit what Brady did in the first 4 years. I just don't find it a complex argument to say this period is what makes him better than Manning and especially when I think it's indisputable that he is better now then he was yet found less success. Its a team game and a team sport. The QB an unusually large share of the outcome as does HC but its not the only factor. I think a QB has to win a SB at some point (which is why I rule out Marino) and they both have but I dont think winning more is the final measure.
I honestly cant say who is better. They are both unbelievable and I think equally great. I think both superior to everyone else.
I think you're diminishing Tom Brady's early Superbowl performances as if he was more riding the coattails than actually being part of the reason they were winning.
2001: 16/27 59%, 145 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT's (this one I'll give you)
2003: 37/50 66.7%, 354 yards, 3 TD's, 1 INT (this was the shootout against Carolina. It also ranks as the 6th best statistical performance in the Superbowl era by a QB).
2004: 23/33 69.7%, 236 yards, 2 TD's, 0 INT's.
The past ten years, Brady and Manning will have played in the same amount of Superbowls, and Brady has a chance to win the same amount as Manning in that 10 year stretch this year.
So by your own admission, they've been neck and neck for the past 10 years.
Why should Brady's early career success, and Manning's lack of it, count against Brady in any way? That's what I don't get.
starting with the Bledsoe injury and the tuck rule. To his credit, he maximized his opportunity. Other candidates for "right place, right time": Big Ben, Russell Wilson, and now, Dak Prescott.
By that odd definition, every NFL player is a case of right place, right time.
Ive said he is tied as the greatest all-time QB ever and Im holding something against him??
I agree that Brady has had the better postseason career than manning, although I dont think its as great a disparity as some believe, partly because Brady's missteps are overlooked due to his early success.
I think Brady has had an advantage in HC and stability of team/organization that is in part attributable to his success
I think if some as the situations/context had changed Manning could have equaled the success that Brady had and vice versa as I believe they both have proved.
I think Brady showed he can put up the type of numbers manning did when he was given that type of talent like Moss and system
I think Brady also showed that he wasnt this perfect/flawless magical postseason QB when he didnt have that dynasty team and was vulnerable to big letdowns, losses and even clutch failures like Peyton has had in the playoffs
Peyton has showed he can have huge playoff games (he had a few perfect QB rating games) and performances and even have magical comeback type moments like he did in AFC title game vs NE in 06 and be a game manager type QB and win as well.
I think Peyton should get some credit for going to a SB with 4 different HCs and being only person to win with 2 teams.
I would consider Peyton's advantage in regular season to be equal to Brady's advantage in the playoffs.
I think if you changed situations, teams, scenarios, they would have had interchangeable results.
Brady has a chance to equal Peyton over the last 10 years but he may not.
1-3 is a big difference from 2-2. Especially in the manner of the one win.
Would you consider Brady to be a worse QB if he doesn't win this game?
Personally, I have made my judgement. Brady and Manning are equals, no matter the result in 2 weeks. I think they have proven all they have needed to prove.
They have not had an equal regular season career. By every measure you could come up with, Manning has been more successful in the regular season.
Brady has had tremendous regular season success as well, just not as much as Manning.
You are trying to act as if the world are equal in that regard. They are not. This is why Manning has more MVPs, more Pro Bowls, holds every major all time QB record.
Brady, however, has had more postseason success than Manning.
Manning has also had tremendous postseason success but not as much as Brady.
Now, why I call t simpleminded is that the bulk of Brady's postseason success and the yard stick for why you and others consider him better is based on the 3 to 4 stretch in the early part of his career.
The subsequent 10 year stretch, when Brady was actually a better QB, has seen basically an even Brady and Manning. Brady would have to win this upcoming game to match Peyton in the last 10 years. Although, he would still be 0-3 against him in the playoffs.
Brady would be viewed quite differently if we had only judged on his last 10 years. His reputation in the early part of his career was as the unflappable QB who could lead the late game rally and deliver the win. He has actually been unable to do that in the last 10 years and has been the victim of that - especially from the Manning Brothers. He has actually thrown many a back breaking INT during this period like vs Denver in 2005 or the Colts in the AFC title game and some others.
I'm not trying to discredit what Brady did in the first 4 years. I just don't find it a complex argument to say this period is what makes him better than Manning and especially when I think it's indisputable that he is better now then he was yet found less success. Its a team game and a team sport. The QB an unusually large share of the outcome as does HC but its not the only factor. I think a QB has to win a SB at some point (which is why I rule out Marino) and they both have but I dont think winning more is the final measure.
I honestly cant say who is better. They are both unbelievable and I think equally great. I think both superior to everyone else.
I think you're diminishing Tom Brady's early Superbowl performances as if he was more riding the coattails than actually being part of the reason they were winning.
2001: 16/27 59%, 145 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT's (this one I'll give you)
2003: 37/50 66.7%, 354 yards, 3 TD's, 1 INT (this was the shootout against Carolina. It also ranks as the 6th best statistical performance in the Superbowl era by a QB).
2004: 23/33 69.7%, 236 yards, 2 TD's, 0 INT's.
The past ten years, Brady and Manning will have played in the same amount of Superbowls, and Brady has a chance to win the same amount as Manning in that 10 year stretch this year.
So by your own admission, they've been neck and neck for the past 10 years.
Why should Brady's early career success, and Manning's lack of it, count against Brady in any way? That's what I don't get.
...that said in the modern era Montana and Brady are the best QB's I've ever watched play. There are a lot of similarities between the two and their style of play and their results. Montana did it at a time when the rules were a lot more balanced between offense and defense.
wasn't even drafted I believe. Not drafted in the days of 27 round drafts, that is
You really should check the facts before posting (like you adamantly insisting on several thread over several days that the Giants D gave up the fewest points in 2016 a few weeks ago, by quoting an erroneous twitter source repeatedly). It takes less than 10 seconds verify it yourself. Really. Try it.
Johnny Unitas was drafted on the 9th round of a 30-round draft, # 109 over all. Far ahead of Tom Brady's #199 overall.
...that said in the modern era Montana and Brady are the best QB's I've ever watched play. There are a lot of similarities between the two and their style of play and their results. Montana did it at a time when the rules were a lot more balanced between offense and defense.
To consistently dominate as he has, in a 32-team, parity-diluted league is extraordinary and unique - Belichick or no Belichick.
That said, I hesitate to compare across eras. The QB position has changed so dramatically since the early 80s that it's almost a different job. The caveat is especially important with Brady, whose one arguable flaw is a drop-off in performance when he gets punched in the mouth. So it's hard to say how he would have fared in an era when punching QBs in the mouth was an integral - and legal - part of the game.
and Tom B best of all time HC and QB ... and it is not even close IF a person if being objective.
This is exactly what I was thinking - the combination of HC & QB is the GOAT. I don't think Brady would have done as well elsewhere and, while I do think BB would still enjoy success, I wonder if it would have been as much with a different, or several, other QBs. BB's ability to game plan and develop players is amazing, as much as I hate to admit it. BUT, all of this still makes me wonder why either would feel it was necessary to cheat. Why would BB film the Jets defensive signals? I mean, it was the JETS for crying out loud. And why on earth would Brady feel the need to have balls deflated? I don't get it. I do absolutely believe he directed the ball guys to deflate the balls, but never believed for a moment that it ultimately affected his play one way or another - he was going to play well regardless. And even if this team of HC & QB are the GOAT, I think the cheating mars both careers, not necessarily in an asterisk kind of way. Both will still get into the HOF but a negative like cheating will follow them.
Context (i.e., surrounding team/coaching) matters. Brady didn't win more superbowls than Peyton. His teams won more than the Colts.
Consider:
U.S. News' list of worst NFL postseason misses by a kicker:
Mike Vanderjagt, Indianapolis Colts, 2006 AFC Divisional Round
What looked like an easy win for the Steelers devolved into mayhem late, with Indianapolis scoring 15 fourth-quarter points to pull to 21-18. Jerome Bettis then had the original Jeremy Hill moment, fumbling with Pittsburgh trying to run out the clock, and Nick Harper ran the ball back to the Colts 42 before being tripped up by Roethlisberger.
Peyton Manning worked Indianapolis into Pittsburgh territory, setting up a 46-yard attempt for Mike Vanderjagt, at that point the most accurate kicker in NFL history.
Vanderjagt missed wide right with 21 seconds left, and the Steelers ran out the clock to hold off the Colts.
Billy Cundiff, Baltimore Ravens, 2012 AFC Championship
This may be the closest relative to Blair Walsh on the heartbreaking missed kick family tree. With his Ravens down 23-20 to the Patriots and 15 seconds left, Cundiff set up for a 32-yard chip shot in cold weather at Gillette Stadium.
Cundiff pulled the kick way left, and New England took a knee and a trip to Lucas Oil Stadium for the Super Bowl, where Tom Brady and Co. lost to the Giants 21-17.
So we dock Peyton for not making the Superbowl that year and Brady keeps on being clutch...all based on whether a kicker makes a kick?
Then turn to a list of the best kicks in playoff history:
2001 AFC Divisional: New England Patriots 16, Oakland Raiders 13 (OT)
Adam Vinatieri's 23-yard field goal in the overtime snow won it for the Patriots in the final game at Foxboro Stadium. The kick sent New England to the AFC Championship Game, where they would beat Pittsburgh.
Super Bowl XXXVIII: New England Patriots 32, Carolina Panthers 29
New England's Adam Vinatieri added to his long postseason resume with a 41-yard field goal that gave the Patriots the lead with four seconds remaining in regulation. New England would win the Lombardi Trophy, their first of two consecutive and three in four seasons.
Super Bowl XXXVI: New England Patriots 20, St. Louis Rams 17
Adam Vinatieri's 48-yard field goal as time expired in Super Bowl XXXVI takes home the honor as the greatest postseason field goal of the past 10 years. Vinatieri's kick not only won Super Bowl XXXVI, but kicked off a New England dynasty that ruled the decade.
The point of all of the above is just to highlight how dependent a QB is on the team around him and how fine the line can be between clutch and not (and how unrelated to the QB it actually is sometimes). Peyton was robbed of the chance for a superbowl by his kicker. Brady got one based on a miss from the Ravens' kicker and won each of his first three in large part due to some of the most clutch kicks of all time.
Would some of you also say that Brady was somehow not the greatest QB of all time if he had lost all of those games solely because Vinatieri missed? That seems to be the only logical conclusion based on some of the comments above.
...and yes, Brady has enjoyed his share of good fortune - including the wacky interception that sealed his most recent Lombardi. The thing is, he's been operating at this level for sixteen years now. I think "luck" is pretty far down the list of Brady's assets at this point. And your argument can also be flipped around: How easily could those two losses to the Giants have gone the other way?
Brady and the Patriots kept winning... Their division, they cheated, etc...
But as Blogger said, they just keep doing it... Consistently, and as Bill2 said, do you doubt that they'll do it again in another year or two if things stay consistent to what they've been?
To some degree (and this is I think the debate point) you have to give the HC and system credit for his success. How much of the credit for the Patriots dominance do you give to Belichick and his overall system. I'm guessing Brady on the Giants has similar stats/win % to Eli and probably loses much more time to injury (hell he might even be retired already).
Quote:
Brady or Montana..An opinion of course, but still, taking either one as the best would not be inappropriate..
Bottom line? The two best QBs of all time were drafted in the 6th and 3rd round..😎
To me, Peyton tops em both. Have always felt that way.
Regular season? I'd agree..Playoffs? Brady or Montana
Traded away a Chandler Jones, cuts a Mankins, let's a Wilfork go, doesn't matter
Take away his draft picks, doesn't matter
Fine him, doesn't matter
Lose players to injury or prison, doesn't matter
Keeps winning, no cap issues, it doesn't matter
It's the coach.
Quote:
In comment 13336600 PaulBlakeTSU said:
Quote:
Peyton rode that defense because he was broken down, further showing how much the sport is a team game. But when he was healthy and went to Denver in a completely new situation, he smashed records.
I'm just saying that that really is a stat padding Superbowl for him.
2-2 in Championship games does look considerably better than the 1-2 that he would have retired with without it. Peyton for a loooooooong time was labeled a big game choker. Tom Brady has NEVER had that label.
Peyton Manning played pretty bad in the Superbowl he actually won. Tom Brady got his team the lead with under 2 minutes in both Superbowls he lost. As somebody else said, Tom Brady is two Eli Manning miracles away from having 6 rings right now, working on 7. As great as Manning was, he just doesn't have that and something needs to separate guys.
Big game choker analysis on Peyton/Mr. Clutch is really such an interesting discussion. Remember the AFC Championship game with the Big Ben tackle to save the game? Remember what followed that tackle? Peyton driving his team into FG range in the clutch and his idiot kicker missing. Thus continued his "choke" legacy while Viniatieri drilled the same kicks for Brady. Completely random and unrelated to relative skill set of the two QBs. And how about the game for Brady against the Chargers where he literally threw the game losing interception only to have them inexplicably fumble it back to the Pats? These random moments are just a snipper of why looking just at stats or big game results is such an imperfect measure.
Manning was one and done 9 times in the playoffs in his career.
Brady has been one and done twice.
He was about as good as Big Ben was when he won his first SB, so throw that one out in comparison to Montana, and they should have lost to Seattle, so, that Lombardi was a gift, even though he played great, we all know SB titles weigh heavily in this conversation. He would have 3 at this point to Montana's 2.
He wins, and plays well, he stands alone.
The reason he never had the same label as Peyton did is that. Yet, does anyone doubt that if Tom Brady was the Colts QB from 2001 to 2004 that they wouldn't have won SBs let alone 3 of 4?
If you could somehow flip Brady's career, imagine what he would have been labeled?
The last 10 playoffs, Brady has went to 3 SBs and won just 1. He lost at 18-0. During that time he has been defeated in 3 AFC title games by Peyton Manning, who won 2 SBs. Including one game where he had a 21-3 lead and threw an interception to end it in the final minute.
His lone SB win was a game that was was really lost. It was a fluke play made by his defense and better clock management and play calling would have resulted in a third loss. I mean the game was out of his hands. It was lost and he had no say in the final outcome.
During this stretch they had lost 4 AFC title games and were knocked out 3 times at home.
He was 0-5 vs Mannings and they were all in the title games and SBs.
The reputation is influenced by previous history, which he obviously earned.
Yet, is there any doubt that Tom Brady has been a better QB for all of the above than he was during his 3 of 4 SB wins?
You can't just evaluate on things like SB wins. Its obviously a big and important factor but not the only one.
I don't say this to try and take away from Tom Brady's success over the last 10 years. He has been incredible and tied for the best ever. Its just to take away from simple-minded arguments that reduce complexity to one factor.
Here's an interesting bit of trivia. Rodgers has now been eliminated from the playoffs 3 times where his opponent scored at least 44 points. You know how many times in Brady's entire regular season and playoff career that his opponent scored at least 44 points? ZERO.
Over Rodgers' 7 playoff losses, his opponent scored an average of 36.3 points per game. In Brady's ENTIRE regular season and postseason career, his opponent scored 36 or more points only 7 total times.
Are these numbers cherry-picked? Sure. But it still shows how QB "success" is out of any QB's control.
The reason he never had the same label as Peyton did is that. Yet, does anyone doubt that if Tom Brady was the Colts QB from 2001 to 2004 that they wouldn't have won SBs let alone 3 of 4?
If you could somehow flip Brady's career, imagine what he would have been labeled?
The last 10 playoffs, Brady has went to 3 SBs and won just 1. He lost at 18-0. During that time he has been defeated in 3 AFC title games by Peyton Manning, who won 2 SBs. Including one game where he had a 21-3 lead and threw an interception to end it in the final minute.
His lone SB win was a game that was was really lost. It was a fluke play made by his defense and better clock management and play calling would have resulted in a third loss. I mean the game was out of his hands. It was lost and he had no say in the final outcome.
During this stretch they had lost 4 AFC title games and were knocked out 3 times at home.
He was 0-5 vs Mannings and they were all in the title games and SBs.
The reputation is influenced by previous history, which he obviously earned.
Yet, is there any doubt that Tom Brady has been a better QB for all of the above than he was during his 3 of 4 SB wins?
You can't just evaluate on things like SB wins. Its obviously a big and important factor but not the only one.
I don't say this to try and take away from Tom Brady's success over the last 10 years. He has been incredible and tied for the best ever. Its just to take away from simple-minded arguments that reduce complexity to one factor.
It's not a simple minded argument, it's a tiebreaker.
Something has to separate the cream of the crop.
Brady and Peyton have all the records and success. If you're picking a definitive number 1, something has to be the tiebreaker.
In my opinion, playoff success and Championships is that tiebreaker.
I don't believe that to be simple minded.
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Passing Yards
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in TD's (both have had the NFL record for most TD's in a season)
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Completion Percentage
Regular Season Records:
Brady: 183 - 52
Manning: 186 - 79
If you're not going to look at playoff records and Championships, how the hell are you going to separate them?
Watch him clip the Falcons wings and show a lacrosse player at WR how to get open. Brady is a great student, and egoless IMO, but it's the coach who maximizes the potential.
Can some team from the AFC East RISE UP JUST FUCKING ONCE and win that division? The Jets, Bills and Dolphins should be ashamed of themselves. I would be embarrassed if I rooted for any of them. Win a fucking division just once in a decade for fucks sake. ONE time! ONCE!!!!!!
Fuck Brady and his perfect QB RATING and life. Fuck the Pats. Fuck the owner. Fuck those spoiled fair weather fans that, outside of a small percentage wouldn't know loyalty from their asses.
One division title in a year where Brady was hurt for the year????? ONE over 16 years???? Wait, TWO...sorry...
That division is an abomination. Every other team should be fucking relegated. Shame on them all. Disgrace. The Pats are beyond great but man, do they have help. They play in a twinkie of a division.
n comment 13336683 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Does anyone honestly doubt that Tom Brady is a better QB now then he was when they won 3 out of 4 SBS?
The reason he never had the same label as Peyton did is that. Yet, does anyone doubt that if Tom Brady was the Colts QB from 2001 to 2004 that they wouldn't have won SBs let alone 3 of 4?
If you could somehow flip Brady's career, imagine what he would have been labeled?
The last 10 playoffs, Brady has went to 3 SBs and won just 1. He lost at 18-0. During that time he has been defeated in 3 AFC title games by Peyton Manning, who won 2 SBs. Including one game where he had a 21-3 lead and threw an interception to end it in the final minute.
His lone SB win was a game that was was really lost. It was a fluke play made by his defense and better clock management and play calling would have resulted in a third loss. I mean the game was out of his hands. It was lost and he had no say in the final outcome.
During this stretch they had lost 4 AFC title games and were knocked out 3 times at home.
He was 0-5 vs Mannings and they were all in the title games and SBs.
The reputation is influenced by previous history, which he obviously earned.
Yet, is there any doubt that Tom Brady has been a better QB for all of the above than he was during his 3 of 4 SB wins?
You can't just evaluate on things like SB wins. Its obviously a big and important factor but not the only one.
I don't say this to try and take away from Tom Brady's success over the last 10 years. He has been incredible and tied for the best ever. Its just to take away from simple-minded arguments that reduce complexity to one factor.
It's not a simple minded argument, it's a tiebreaker.
Something has to separate the cream of the crop.
Brady and Peyton have all the records and success. If you're picking a definitive number 1, something has to be the tiebreaker.
In my opinion, playoff success and Championships is that tiebreaker.
I don't believe that to be simple minded.
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Passing Yards
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in TD's (both have had the NFL record for most TD's in a season)
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Completion Percentage
Regular Season Records:
Brady: 183 - 52
Manning: 186 - 79
If you're not going to look at playoff records and Championships, how the hell are you going to separate them?
In those categories you list- Peyton Manning has the clear edge. He is the all time leader in those categories. He has 10000 more pass yards, he has almost 100 more TDs. He has the single season TD record. He has more MVPs, etc.
Of none of these stats and these kind of individual stats does Tom Brady hold an advantage over Peyton Manning.
You expanded to the top 5 all-time, to include Brady. Because Peyton isnt top 5 in any of them. He is the all time leader in them.
Its not a tiebreaker.
Your view on the postseason is what gets you to a tie and then you give the edge to Brady based on that factor lone, which you judge to be more significant
In comment 13336683 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Does anyone honestly doubt that Tom Brady is a better QB now then he was when they won 3 out of 4 SBS?
The reason he never had the same label as Peyton did is that. Yet, does anyone doubt that if Tom Brady was the Colts QB from 2001 to 2004 that they wouldn't have won SBs let alone 3 of 4?
If you could somehow flip Brady's career, imagine what he would have been labeled?
The last 10 playoffs, Brady has went to 3 SBs and won just 1. He lost at 18-0. During that time he has been defeated in 3 AFC title games by Peyton Manning, who won 2 SBs. Including one game where he had a 21-3 lead and threw an interception to end it in the final minute.
His lone SB win was a game that was was really lost. It was a fluke play made by his defense and better clock management and play calling would have resulted in a third loss. I mean the game was out of his hands. It was lost and he had no say in the final outcome.
During this stretch they had lost 4 AFC title games and were knocked out 3 times at home.
He was 0-5 vs Mannings and they were all in the title games and SBs.
The reputation is influenced by previous history, which he obviously earned.
Yet, is there any doubt that Tom Brady has been a better QB for all of the above than he was during his 3 of 4 SB wins?
You can't just evaluate on things like SB wins. Its obviously a big and important factor but not the only one.
I don't say this to try and take away from Tom Brady's success over the last 10 years. He has been incredible and tied for the best ever. Its just to take away from simple-minded arguments that reduce complexity to one factor.
It's not a simple minded argument, it's a tiebreaker.
Something has to separate the cream of the crop.
Brady and Peyton have all the records and success. If you're picking a definitive number 1, something has to be the tiebreaker.
In my opinion, playoff success and Championships is that tiebreaker.
I don't believe that to be simple minded.
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Passing Yards
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in TD's (both have had the NFL record for most TD's in a season)
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Completion Percentage
Regular Season Records:
Brady: 183 - 52
Manning: 186 - 79
If you're not going to look at playoff records and Championships, how the hell are you going to separate them?
You can't just say "saying Brady has won more Superbowls and playoff games is simple minded". That would be like me saying your argument there about the being the all time leader is simple minded (it's not).
But in a subjective debate such as "best ever", it just depends what the individual making the argument holds in higher regard.
Peyton is 9th overall with 251.
Brady didn't even make the Top 50 with 152.
Or an unfathomable brainfart from Carroll and Wilson from being 0-8 given those FIVE 3 point wins that could have easily gone the opponents' way
He may get hit and never play again
or
He may play 3-5 more years and make 2 more SB's and throw for 4000 yards each of those seasons
Neither he nor Hoodie show any signs of slowing down or easing up. That team looks like it is on the ascent...especially on defense.
If Brady makes 1 more SB after this and wins this one or that one....then arguing he is not the GOAT becomes really difficult
That to me is the hard part to comprehend. He is not done yet as an elite QB leading an elite team and an elite organization.
I think arguing against him as the GOAT in more five years is going to be a matter of not liking something he said or jealousy or just to be contrarian.
Im sorry but they will get to the SB again after this. Maybe twice. You have to be great ( and surrounded by great) to put yourself in such a position
Bradshaw won 4 Super Bowls. I have yet to see anyone mention him on here as one of the three best ever.
Brady has had tremendous regular season success as well, just not as much as Manning.
You are trying to act as if the world are equal in that regard. They are not. This is why Manning has more MVPs, more Pro Bowls, holds every major all time QB record.
Brady, however, has had more postseason success than Manning.
Manning has also had tremendous postseason success but not as much as Brady.
Now, why I call t simpleminded is that the bulk of Brady's postseason success and the yard stick for why you and others consider him better is based on the 3 to 4 stretch in the early part of his career.
The subsequent 10 year stretch, when Brady was actually a better QB, has seen basically an even Brady and Manning. Brady would have to win this upcoming game to match Peyton in the last 10 years. Although, he would still be 0-3 against him in the playoffs.
Brady would be viewed quite differently if we had only judged on his last 10 years. His reputation in the early part of his career was as the unflappable QB who could lead the late game rally and deliver the win. He has actually been unable to do that in the last 10 years and has been the victim of that - especially from the Manning Brothers. He has actually thrown many a back breaking INT during this period like vs Denver in 2005 or the Colts in the AFC title game and some others.
I'm not trying to discredit what Brady did in the first 4 years. I just don't find it a complex argument to say this period is what makes him better than Manning and especially when I think it's indisputable that he is better now then he was yet found less success. Its a team game and a team sport. The QB an unusually large share of the outcome as does HC but its not the only factor. I think a QB has to win a SB at some point (which is why I rule out Marino) and they both have but I dont think winning more is the final measure.
I honestly cant say who is better. They are both unbelievable and I think equally great. I think both superior to everyone else.
Bradshaw won 4 Super Bowls. I have yet to see anyone mention him on here as one of the three best ever.
Bradshaw doesn't have the stats, the records, or the League MVP's to be considered.
Brady is the total package. Peyton as well. Montana is there, too, but can't compare eras, but he was a guy that had the stats, the records, the MVP's, and the Championships. Those three guys are the ones that had it all.
Brady has had tremendous regular season success as well, just not as much as Manning.
You are trying to act as if the world are equal in that regard. They are not. This is why Manning has more MVPs, more Pro Bowls, holds every major all time QB record.
Brady, however, has had more postseason success than Manning.
Manning has also had tremendous postseason success but not as much as Brady.
Now, why I call t simpleminded is that the bulk of Brady's postseason success and the yard stick for why you and others consider him better is based on the 3 to 4 stretch in the early part of his career.
The subsequent 10 year stretch, when Brady was actually a better QB, has seen basically an even Brady and Manning. Brady would have to win this upcoming game to match Peyton in the last 10 years. Although, he would still be 0-3 against him in the playoffs.
Brady would be viewed quite differently if we had only judged on his last 10 years. His reputation in the early part of his career was as the unflappable QB who could lead the late game rally and deliver the win. He has actually been unable to do that in the last 10 years and has been the victim of that - especially from the Manning Brothers. He has actually thrown many a back breaking INT during this period like vs Denver in 2005 or the Colts in the AFC title game and some others.
I'm not trying to discredit what Brady did in the first 4 years. I just don't find it a complex argument to say this period is what makes him better than Manning and especially when I think it's indisputable that he is better now then he was yet found less success. Its a team game and a team sport. The QB an unusually large share of the outcome as does HC but its not the only factor. I think a QB has to win a SB at some point (which is why I rule out Marino) and they both have but I dont think winning more is the final measure.
I honestly cant say who is better. They are both unbelievable and I think equally great. I think both superior to everyone else.
I think you're diminishing Tom Brady's early Superbowl performances as if he was more riding the coattails than actually being part of the reason they were winning.
2001: 16/27 59%, 145 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT's (this one I'll give you)
2003: 37/50 66.7%, 354 yards, 3 TD's, 1 INT (this was the shootout against Carolina. It also ranks as the 6th best statistical performance in the Superbowl era by a QB).
2004: 23/33 69.7%, 236 yards, 2 TD's, 0 INT's.
The past ten years, Brady and Manning will have played in the same amount of Superbowls, and Brady has a chance to win the same amount as Manning in that 10 year stretch this year.
So by your own admission, they've been neck and neck for the past 10 years.
Why should Brady's early career success, and Manning's lack of it, count against Brady in any way? That's what I don't get.
By that odd definition, every NFL player is a case of right place, right time.
Ive said he is tied as the greatest all-time QB ever and Im holding something against him??
I agree that Brady has had the better postseason career than manning, although I dont think its as great a disparity as some believe, partly because Brady's missteps are overlooked due to his early success.
I think Brady has had an advantage in HC and stability of team/organization that is in part attributable to his success
I think if some as the situations/context had changed Manning could have equaled the success that Brady had and vice versa as I believe they both have proved.
I think Brady showed he can put up the type of numbers manning did when he was given that type of talent like Moss and system
I think Brady also showed that he wasnt this perfect/flawless magical postseason QB when he didnt have that dynasty team and was vulnerable to big letdowns, losses and even clutch failures like Peyton has had in the playoffs
Peyton has showed he can have huge playoff games (he had a few perfect QB rating games) and performances and even have magical comeback type moments like he did in AFC title game vs NE in 06 and be a game manager type QB and win as well.
I think Peyton should get some credit for going to a SB with 4 different HCs and being only person to win with 2 teams.
I would consider Peyton's advantage in regular season to be equal to Brady's advantage in the playoffs.
I think if you changed situations, teams, scenarios, they would have had interchangeable results.
Which is why I consider them equal?
So.. what's the "system" ?
1-3 is a big difference from 2-2. Especially in the manner of the one win.
Would you consider Brady to be a worse QB if he doesn't win this game?
Personally, I have made my judgement. Brady and Manning are equals, no matter the result in 2 weeks. I think they have proven all they have needed to prove.
In comment 13336853 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
They have not had an equal regular season career. By every measure you could come up with, Manning has been more successful in the regular season.
Brady has had tremendous regular season success as well, just not as much as Manning.
You are trying to act as if the world are equal in that regard. They are not. This is why Manning has more MVPs, more Pro Bowls, holds every major all time QB record.
Brady, however, has had more postseason success than Manning.
Manning has also had tremendous postseason success but not as much as Brady.
Now, why I call t simpleminded is that the bulk of Brady's postseason success and the yard stick for why you and others consider him better is based on the 3 to 4 stretch in the early part of his career.
The subsequent 10 year stretch, when Brady was actually a better QB, has seen basically an even Brady and Manning. Brady would have to win this upcoming game to match Peyton in the last 10 years. Although, he would still be 0-3 against him in the playoffs.
Brady would be viewed quite differently if we had only judged on his last 10 years. His reputation in the early part of his career was as the unflappable QB who could lead the late game rally and deliver the win. He has actually been unable to do that in the last 10 years and has been the victim of that - especially from the Manning Brothers. He has actually thrown many a back breaking INT during this period like vs Denver in 2005 or the Colts in the AFC title game and some others.
I'm not trying to discredit what Brady did in the first 4 years. I just don't find it a complex argument to say this period is what makes him better than Manning and especially when I think it's indisputable that he is better now then he was yet found less success. Its a team game and a team sport. The QB an unusually large share of the outcome as does HC but its not the only factor. I think a QB has to win a SB at some point (which is why I rule out Marino) and they both have but I dont think winning more is the final measure.
I honestly cant say who is better. They are both unbelievable and I think equally great. I think both superior to everyone else.
I think you're diminishing Tom Brady's early Superbowl performances as if he was more riding the coattails than actually being part of the reason they were winning.
2001: 16/27 59%, 145 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT's (this one I'll give you)
2003: 37/50 66.7%, 354 yards, 3 TD's, 1 INT (this was the shootout against Carolina. It also ranks as the 6th best statistical performance in the Superbowl era by a QB).
2004: 23/33 69.7%, 236 yards, 2 TD's, 0 INT's.
The past ten years, Brady and Manning will have played in the same amount of Superbowls, and Brady has a chance to win the same amount as Manning in that 10 year stretch this year.
So by your own admission, they've been neck and neck for the past 10 years.
Why should Brady's early career success, and Manning's lack of it, count against Brady in any way? That's what I don't get.
You really should check the facts before posting (like you adamantly insisting on several thread over several days that the Giants D gave up the fewest points in 2016 a few weeks ago, by quoting an erroneous twitter source repeatedly). It takes less than 10 seconds verify it yourself. Really. Try it.
Johnny Unitas was drafted on the 9th round of a 30-round draft, # 109 over all. Far ahead of Tom Brady's #199 overall.
Johnny Unitas was drafted on the 9th round of a 30-round draft, # 109 over all. Far ahead of Tom Brady's #199 overall.
Typo ... #102 overall for Johnny U.
Yup
That said, I hesitate to compare across eras. The QB position has changed so dramatically since the early 80s that it's almost a different job. The caveat is especially important with Brady, whose one arguable flaw is a drop-off in performance when he gets punched in the mouth. So it's hard to say how he would have fared in an era when punching QBs in the mouth was an integral - and legal - part of the game.
This is exactly what I was thinking - the combination of HC & QB is the GOAT. I don't think Brady would have done as well elsewhere and, while I do think BB would still enjoy success, I wonder if it would have been as much with a different, or several, other QBs. BB's ability to game plan and develop players is amazing, as much as I hate to admit it. BUT, all of this still makes me wonder why either would feel it was necessary to cheat. Why would BB film the Jets defensive signals? I mean, it was the JETS for crying out loud. And why on earth would Brady feel the need to have balls deflated? I don't get it. I do absolutely believe he directed the ball guys to deflate the balls, but never believed for a moment that it ultimately affected his play one way or another - he was going to play well regardless. And even if this team of HC & QB are the GOAT, I think the cheating mars both careers, not necessarily in an asterisk kind of way. Both will still get into the HOF but a negative like cheating will follow them.
Consider:
U.S. News' list of worst NFL postseason misses by a kicker:
Mike Vanderjagt, Indianapolis Colts, 2006 AFC Divisional Round
What looked like an easy win for the Steelers devolved into mayhem late, with Indianapolis scoring 15 fourth-quarter points to pull to 21-18. Jerome Bettis then had the original Jeremy Hill moment, fumbling with Pittsburgh trying to run out the clock, and Nick Harper ran the ball back to the Colts 42 before being tripped up by Roethlisberger.
Peyton Manning worked Indianapolis into Pittsburgh territory, setting up a 46-yard attempt for Mike Vanderjagt, at that point the most accurate kicker in NFL history.
Vanderjagt missed wide right with 21 seconds left, and the Steelers ran out the clock to hold off the Colts.
Billy Cundiff, Baltimore Ravens, 2012 AFC Championship
This may be the closest relative to Blair Walsh on the heartbreaking missed kick family tree. With his Ravens down 23-20 to the Patriots and 15 seconds left, Cundiff set up for a 32-yard chip shot in cold weather at Gillette Stadium.
Cundiff pulled the kick way left, and New England took a knee and a trip to Lucas Oil Stadium for the Super Bowl, where Tom Brady and Co. lost to the Giants 21-17.
So we dock Peyton for not making the Superbowl that year and Brady keeps on being clutch...all based on whether a kicker makes a kick?
Then turn to a list of the best kicks in playoff history:
2001 AFC Divisional: New England Patriots 16, Oakland Raiders 13 (OT)
Adam Vinatieri's 23-yard field goal in the overtime snow won it for the Patriots in the final game at Foxboro Stadium. The kick sent New England to the AFC Championship Game, where they would beat Pittsburgh.
Super Bowl XXXVIII: New England Patriots 32, Carolina Panthers 29
New England's Adam Vinatieri added to his long postseason resume with a 41-yard field goal that gave the Patriots the lead with four seconds remaining in regulation. New England would win the Lombardi Trophy, their first of two consecutive and three in four seasons.
Super Bowl XXXVI: New England Patriots 20, St. Louis Rams 17
Adam Vinatieri's 48-yard field goal as time expired in Super Bowl XXXVI takes home the honor as the greatest postseason field goal of the past 10 years. Vinatieri's kick not only won Super Bowl XXXVI, but kicked off a New England dynasty that ruled the decade.
The point of all of the above is just to highlight how dependent a QB is on the team around him and how fine the line can be between clutch and not (and how unrelated to the QB it actually is sometimes). Peyton was robbed of the chance for a superbowl by his kicker. Brady got one based on a miss from the Ravens' kicker and won each of his first three in large part due to some of the most clutch kicks of all time.
Would some of you also say that Brady was somehow not the greatest QB of all time if he had lost all of those games solely because Vinatieri missed? That seems to be the only logical conclusion based on some of the comments above.
This year Dallas had a Last place Schedule...
But as Blogger said, they just keep doing it... Consistently, and as Bill2 said, do you doubt that they'll do it again in another year or two if things stay consistent to what they've been?
This is a machine that shows no sign of stopping.