isn't one of the GOATs. He clearly is. But to my eye, Peyton is the greatest QB I've ever seen. And to my eye, Bill Belichick is the greatest coach I've ever seen.
My point is that in making the distinction between he and his peers and that level, I think looking at Superbowl wins is lazy. It's the same reason I won't argue Eli or Tom Bradshaw are better than Dan Marino. I don't believe they are, despite the Superbowl wins (and I'm an ardent Eli homer by all accounts). There's more that goes into achieving that result than just having the best QB.
Again, I go back to this. Put Peyton on the Pats teams of the past 15 years. Do you think there's a pretty fair shot they win at least 4 superbowls/appear in 7 (I do). Now put Brady on those Colts/Broncos teams, do you think he still wins 4 superbowls and appears in 7 (I don't). If you agree...you're tacitly acknowledging what I'm saying here...that there was more at play than just who was the better QB.
I've always believed he was the single most dominant player I've ever seen in the NFL.
Just hearing coaches and defenses talk about playing his teams - they always said Peyton and not his team. He was just a force. It was 11 guys and a coaching staff against him.
I truly believe that Peyton Manning would have been successful on any team, in any circumstance, in any era. I think he would have turned that team into the most unstoppable offensive unit in the NFL, made them a perennial playoff team and won a Super Bowl or two.
If you put a young Peyton on this years Browns, this would be true in a meter of a year or two
I fully believe that.
My question on him has been that there clearly has been an impact on him at key moments and unable to deliver as well as he did in the regular season.i think its more about the whittling down of a season to 1 team or 1 Defnse that would inevitably be playing a such a level that could match him.
Is it just too much about 1 man in a team sport that made his teams vulnerable to being shut down if you could manage to outmatch Manning. Do his teams just become too much about him? That it might have led him to not be as successful as he could have been had he found himself paired with a Belichick?
I once interviewed Carmen Basilio, the former Welterweight and Middleweight champion of the world. When I asked him if Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest boxer of all time, pound for pound he replied, "How could he be? I beat him!"
I had once believed that Brady was limited to being a "clutch" QB like Eli Manning who could rise to the occasion in the right team/game but wasn't as say talented as the Peyton's, Rodgers, etc
I wondered if he could be the dominant single force player that could carry his team and be an unstoppable force that defenses and coaches had to game plan around.
However, Brady has clearly proven that he can do that. That he could be that guy and could lead teams and franchises in that and it wasn't just because of his head coach and organization.
Could Brady have been as successful in a different organization? With a different coach? Especially one with one with a tumultuous front office like the Jets that always made different changes to different whims.
I have a much easier time imagining Peyton doing this.
I do obviously believe that Brady would have found success and would have taken such teams to the playoffs and maybe have won a Super Bowl.
I love how quick some people try to downplay the Patriots SB wins
but then get butthurt when people talk about how lucky the Giants got in their SB wins.
Big Butthurt Interactive never fails
Don't know if that's directed at me or not. I've always said luck is a part of winning a Superbowl (in fact, that's perfectly in line with what I'm saying here....that the difference in Brady and Peyton's resumes in part reflects little more than that in the way of who was lucky enough to have/face a clutch kicker and who wasn't). That's why I try to account for that factor in trying to rank them.
Personally, it doesn't bother me to say that Giants benefited from luck nearly as much as it does when people say the defense carried Eli to a title (especially in regards to 2011).
However, I would like to see him playing in the NFL outside of the Patriots system as a comparison. That would be the true test of how good he really is, beyond an important component in a sum of parts that Bill has built.
1)How many more passes per home game get completed because of the Colts dome?
How many more are accurate allow to allow easier Yards after the catch?
No wind, no sun, no rain, no snow
10% more? X 8 games per year and a few playoff games?
2) How many years did Brady have two WR with as much talent as Harrison and Wayne? How many years with one great WR ( Moss ) vs two very very good ones?
Peyton had 4 coaches. The Pats won in four different systems, ways and strengths.
Peyton was one of the greats. Brady beat him almost 2x more than Peyton beat him.
I agree that the current case for Brady allows debate.
Oddly the Montana argument ignores that Walsh and SF won very well with Young. So Coach and System did not make Montana but the same did make Brady?
To me, here is the key: Brady is not finished. Perhaps not even close to finished. Do you really really doubt that Brady and Pats will not make it back in the next four years?
Note: they get Gronk back and add more in the offseason...like maybe even a good WR or a Vereen like pass catching RB
Remember when the read option was all the rage? Once a couple of defenses set the blueprint for how to defend it, it essentially vanished because DC's around the league took note and used that same strategy.
Does anyone sit here and truly believe that after about 15 years now, what the Patriots are doing is just some "system" and still no one has figured it out? Think about that and how unlikely that really is.
I read an interesting article about them semi-recently. What they do offensively actually isn't that complicated. They take route concepts and they simply run those same routes and same plays out of all different formations.
In one formation, for example, maybe they'll have 2 WR split out wide with a WR in the slot.. they'll have the flanker run a deep post and the SE run a square-in and the slot guy will run a crossing route. Out of the backfield, they'll have the RB run a flat.
Then, using that same personnel grouping, maybe they use a bunch formation or maybe they pull the RB out of the backfield and have him line up in the other slot. All 4 guys are still running the same route they just ran on the previous play but now some of them are running them from different places.
Teams have a difficult time defending them because it can be difficult to really pick up on formation-based tendencies. But this isn't the only reason why they're so difficult to stop. Because if it was, every team would be trying to use these same concepts. And I'm sure some do to a degree.
That said. This doesn't work the same way if you replace Brady with a run of the mill QB. A historic run like this doesn't happen because of just one coach or just one player. This is Bill and Tom together. Forming the greatest QB/HC duo in NFL history.
but if I had to point to the number one reason for the Patriots' success, it's Belichick. He's implemented a winning culture there and has total control and job security. There is zero tolerance for unprofessional bullshit, and whenever a player isn't pulling in the same direction as the team that player is traded for resources. The ruthlessness with personnel has been crucial; it will be interesting to see how they handle Gronk, who while a great player is starting to see the injuries add up.
I would go with Rodgers. He's the best player I've seen.
After that Brady. Then Peyton.
If I had my choice of one QB to start a team I'd go with young Rodgers over anybody. Is that how you judge best? Or is it more about Super Bowls in a team game? I wouldn't pick the best at any other position this way but with QB it goes to the championships which is why Montana and Bradshaw get mentioned too much in this conversation.
RE: RE: Brady is the poster boy of right place, right time
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.
How do you mean? was Andre Williams in the right place at the right time? what if he got drafted by the Cowboys and he ran behind that line his entire career? Would he be a 3-time Pro Bowler? Wouldn't you consider that to be "right place, right time" vs being unfortunate enough to get drafted by the Giants. Or what if Nassib was Romo's backup instead of playing behind NFL's Iron Man? Would Nassib be the guy everybody is talking about instead of Dak?
how an argument could be made against him being the best of all time.
I always found the well he's not undefeated in Super Bowls like Montana is.
So Montana lost more before getting to the actual Super Bowl than Brady has and we're supposed to use that against Brady?
4-2 in Super Bowls is better than 4-0. Yet people act like 4-0 is better than 4-2
Well it was tougher to get to the SB for an old school NFC QB, while it was harder to win it outright for modern QBs of either conference. The 1984 season says it all: win grind it out games against Giants & Bears then slays the Marino led Dolphins after his historic season.
I do think that 49er fans themselves would be the first to question Montana's greatness if he lost twice to a team in the Super Bowl that wasn't a better all around team. Cincinnati was essentially the best AFC opponent to the Niners and kept it tight in both games, and didn't win either.
When the Giants beat the Niners in '85, '86, '90, they were on the same level or better. Every year had a more or less predestined champion.
It's one of those things that can be argued either way. Brady had better QB competition in his conference, but overall team and HC, he had a nice edge.
When the Ravens and Steelers brought a complete package, they created problems for Brady.
Brady for most of his career had one of the 3-4 best QB's of all time in his conference, so spare me how much harder it was to get to the Super Bowl in the 80's. It wasn't. It's a lot harder to keep a team together and be a dynasty now than it was in the 80's
The flip side is that Joe Montana lost championship games to Theismann, McMahon, Hostetler, and divisional games to Simms and Wade Wilson.
Back then QB meant a helluva lot less than it does now in a head to head showdown. It meant a lot for sustained excellence, which is why the Niners were the team of the '80s.
Maybe if Marino or Elway played on a similarly stacked NFC team your argument could hold muster.
As it stands, Brady's HC & defenses whipped Peyton Manning more often than not....Brady was essentially an old school NFC QB in that sense going up against the Colts.
The few years a great defense existed in the AFC, Brady was no better than 50/50. Ravens '09, Jets '10....Ravens '12, Ravens '14 almost a loss.
Last year's AFC Championship game was a little taste of Joe Montana's career.
My point is that in making the distinction between he and his peers and that level, I think looking at Superbowl wins is lazy. It's the same reason I won't argue Eli or Tom Bradshaw are better than Dan Marino. I don't believe they are, despite the Superbowl wins (and I'm an ardent Eli homer by all accounts). There's more that goes into achieving that result than just having the best QB.
Again, I go back to this. Put Peyton on the Pats teams of the past 15 years. Do you think there's a pretty fair shot they win at least 4 superbowls/appear in 7 (I do). Now put Brady on those Colts/Broncos teams, do you think he still wins 4 superbowls and appears in 7 (I don't). If you agree...you're tacitly acknowledging what I'm saying here...that there was more at play than just who was the better QB.
Just hearing coaches and defenses talk about playing his teams - they always said Peyton and not his team. He was just a force. It was 11 guys and a coaching staff against him.
I truly believe that Peyton Manning would have been successful on any team, in any circumstance, in any era. I think he would have turned that team into the most unstoppable offensive unit in the NFL, made them a perennial playoff team and won a Super Bowl or two.
If you put a young Peyton on this years Browns, this would be true in a meter of a year or two
I fully believe that.
My question on him has been that there clearly has been an impact on him at key moments and unable to deliver as well as he did in the regular season.i think its more about the whittling down of a season to 1 team or 1 Defnse that would inevitably be playing a such a level that could match him.
Is it just too much about 1 man in a team sport that made his teams vulnerable to being shut down if you could manage to outmatch Manning. Do his teams just become too much about him? That it might have led him to not be as successful as he could have been had he found himself paired with a Belichick?
I wondered if he could be the dominant single force player that could carry his team and be an unstoppable force that defenses and coaches had to game plan around.
However, Brady has clearly proven that he can do that. That he could be that guy and could lead teams and franchises in that and it wasn't just because of his head coach and organization.
Could Brady have been as successful in a different organization? With a different coach? Especially one with one with a tumultuous front office like the Jets that always made different changes to different whims.
I have a much easier time imagining Peyton doing this.
I do obviously believe that Brady would have found success and would have taken such teams to the playoffs and maybe have won a Super Bowl.
Big Butthurt Interactive never fails
Big Butthurt Interactive never fails
Don't know if that's directed at me or not. I've always said luck is a part of winning a Superbowl (in fact, that's perfectly in line with what I'm saying here....that the difference in Brady and Peyton's resumes in part reflects little more than that in the way of who was lucky enough to have/face a clutch kicker and who wasn't). That's why I try to account for that factor in trying to rank them.
Personally, it doesn't bother me to say that Giants benefited from luck nearly as much as it does when people say the defense carried Eli to a title (especially in regards to 2011).
However, I would like to see him playing in the NFL outside of the Patriots system as a comparison. That would be the true test of how good he really is, beyond an important component in a sum of parts that Bill has built.
I do believe he was the best of his era and better than Elway and Marino.
How many more are accurate allow to allow easier Yards after the catch?
No wind, no sun, no rain, no snow
10% more? X 8 games per year and a few playoff games?
2) How many years did Brady have two WR with as much talent as Harrison and Wayne? How many years with one great WR ( Moss ) vs two very very good ones?
Peyton had 4 coaches. The Pats won in four different systems, ways and strengths.
Peyton was one of the greats. Brady beat him almost 2x more than Peyton beat him.
I agree that the current case for Brady allows debate.
Oddly the Montana argument ignores that Walsh and SF won very well with Young. So Coach and System did not make Montana but the same did make Brady?
To me, here is the key: Brady is not finished. Perhaps not even close to finished. Do you really really doubt that Brady and Pats will not make it back in the next four years?
Note: they get Gronk back and add more in the offseason...like maybe even a good WR or a Vereen like pass catching RB
Lets have the conversation when he is.
It always has been it always will be.
Remember when the read option was all the rage? Once a couple of defenses set the blueprint for how to defend it, it essentially vanished because DC's around the league took note and used that same strategy.
Does anyone sit here and truly believe that after about 15 years now, what the Patriots are doing is just some "system" and still no one has figured it out? Think about that and how unlikely that really is.
I read an interesting article about them semi-recently. What they do offensively actually isn't that complicated. They take route concepts and they simply run those same routes and same plays out of all different formations.
In one formation, for example, maybe they'll have 2 WR split out wide with a WR in the slot.. they'll have the flanker run a deep post and the SE run a square-in and the slot guy will run a crossing route. Out of the backfield, they'll have the RB run a flat.
Then, using that same personnel grouping, maybe they use a bunch formation or maybe they pull the RB out of the backfield and have him line up in the other slot. All 4 guys are still running the same route they just ran on the previous play but now some of them are running them from different places.
Teams have a difficult time defending them because it can be difficult to really pick up on formation-based tendencies. But this isn't the only reason why they're so difficult to stop. Because if it was, every team would be trying to use these same concepts. And I'm sure some do to a degree.
That said. This doesn't work the same way if you replace Brady with a run of the mill QB. A historic run like this doesn't happen because of just one coach or just one player. This is Bill and Tom together. Forming the greatest QB/HC duo in NFL history.
After that Brady. Then Peyton.
If I had my choice of one QB to start a team I'd go with young Rodgers over anybody. Is that how you judge best? Or is it more about Super Bowls in a team game? I wouldn't pick the best at any other position this way but with QB it goes to the championships which is why Montana and Bradshaw get mentioned too much in this conversation.
Quote:
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.
How do you mean? was Andre Williams in the right place at the right time? what if he got drafted by the Cowboys and he ran behind that line his entire career? Would he be a 3-time Pro Bowler? Wouldn't you consider that to be "right place, right time" vs being unfortunate enough to get drafted by the Giants. Or what if Nassib was Romo's backup instead of playing behind NFL's Iron Man? Would Nassib be the guy everybody is talking about instead of Dak?
Quote:
In comment 13336460 MookGiants said:
Quote:
how an argument could be made against him being the best of all time.
I always found the well he's not undefeated in Super Bowls like Montana is.
So Montana lost more before getting to the actual Super Bowl than Brady has and we're supposed to use that against Brady?
4-2 in Super Bowls is better than 4-0. Yet people act like 4-0 is better than 4-2
Well it was tougher to get to the SB for an old school NFC QB, while it was harder to win it outright for modern QBs of either conference. The 1984 season says it all: win grind it out games against Giants & Bears then slays the Marino led Dolphins after his historic season.
I do think that 49er fans themselves would be the first to question Montana's greatness if he lost twice to a team in the Super Bowl that wasn't a better all around team. Cincinnati was essentially the best AFC opponent to the Niners and kept it tight in both games, and didn't win either.
When the Giants beat the Niners in '85, '86, '90, they were on the same level or better. Every year had a more or less predestined champion.
It's one of those things that can be argued either way. Brady had better QB competition in his conference, but overall team and HC, he had a nice edge.
When the Ravens and Steelers brought a complete package, they created problems for Brady.
Brady for most of his career had one of the 3-4 best QB's of all time in his conference, so spare me how much harder it was to get to the Super Bowl in the 80's. It wasn't. It's a lot harder to keep a team together and be a dynasty now than it was in the 80's
The flip side is that Joe Montana lost championship games to Theismann, McMahon, Hostetler, and divisional games to Simms and Wade Wilson.
Back then QB meant a helluva lot less than it does now in a head to head showdown. It meant a lot for sustained excellence, which is why the Niners were the team of the '80s.
Maybe if Marino or Elway played on a similarly stacked NFC team your argument could hold muster.
As it stands, Brady's HC & defenses whipped Peyton Manning more often than not....Brady was essentially an old school NFC QB in that sense going up against the Colts.
The few years a great defense existed in the AFC, Brady was no better than 50/50. Ravens '09, Jets '10....Ravens '12, Ravens '14 almost a loss.
Last year's AFC Championship game was a little taste of Joe Montana's career.
Sorry.
KC/Houston '93 - let's see Brady do that.