The tempo helps from a conditioning standpoint as well as a substitution standpoint. I like Chip Kelly used to do. He made a defense defend the whole field. Sideline to sideline and all levels of the field. That created huge gaps in the defense as well as making the DL run all over the field. Have we tried any of this?
Aaron Jones is a hammer. They need to ride him more. Guy can run. I think they moved Montgomery to get him more touches. Williams is still there but Jones is just clearly better.
I think a lot of informed people think Rodgers is in the GOAT conversation.
So WTF are you talking about?
Rodgers is not in the conversation for greatest ever.
LOL. What have you been watching the last 10 years?
Watching Tom Brady dominate the sport of football. In just about every possible way. You?
Me?
I've been watching a QB who is elusive, accurate, has a cannon arm, and throws more accurately on the run than just about anyone I've ever seen.
Aaron Rodgers has carried a lot of these Packers teams. Look what they turned into last year when Hundley was under center. They were barely even competitive.
Do you think NE would have any less hardware if you switched Brady and Rodgers?
1st ballot HOF no question. He doesnt have enough seasons left to come close to the hardware Brady has. Brady is the GOAT. Doubt he gets surpassed in my lifetime.
Brady is clearly on the conversation but he said Rodgers in the conversation is a joke.
thats really the joke...right?
For me its Rodgers and Brady at the top. But I would take Rodgers to start a team if both guys were 22.
It completely about Brady. The foobarz or whatever his name is declared lets see who the real GOAT is my point is that there is no conversation about the best QB ever. You cant talk about if this guy was on this team etc... Brady won 5 Superbowls. Completely has dominated the sport. Brady, and it will always pain me to say, is undeniably the greatest ever.
They moved the time up in brazil. Its 12am here and the game just in second quarter. This looks like one of those games that who ever gets the ball last wins
Brady is clearly on the conversation but he said Rodgers in the conversation is a joke.
thats really the joke...right?
For me its Rodgers and Brady at the top. But I would take Rodgers to start a team if both guys were 22.
It completely about Brady. The foobarz or whatever his name is declared lets see who the real GOAT is my point is that there is no conversation about the best QB ever. You cant talk about if this guy was on this team etc... Brady won 5 Superbowls. Completely has dominated the sport. Brady, and it will always pain me to say, is undeniably the greatest ever.
Rodger team has always been trash. The gm puts all the weight on rodgers shoulders. They just got rid of their best CB and have no depth. Pats have been in a crappy division, I wanna see Brady do that in Packers division. Bears and vikings are made to attack the QB because of rodgers in their division
The difference between Brady and Rodgers is that Mike McCarthy is not even in the same universe as Bill Belichick.
Thats just your opinion. Belicheck has done nothing without Brady, and I doubt we will ever see what happens if they parted.
He's done nothing without Brady?
He coached an 11-5 team with Matt Cassel in 2008.
He got 11 wins out of the Browns in '94. They haven't won that many games since.
Nonsense.
He was 36-44 with the Browns. Macadoo had a good record one season with the Giants, does it really mean anything?
Well, considering that the Browns have only played in one playoff game since Bill was there... and he left over 20 years ago... yeah, I think it means a little something.
Belichick is a tremendous coach. A great QB doesn't carry a team to the successes the Pats have had over the last 15+ years on their own.
Just doesn't happen.
The Pats haven't won less than 10 games in 15 years. You think that's all Brady?
RE: What was called out was your comment about WTF
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Win 5 Super Bowls and go to 8 instead of 1.
The gap between the two as far as super bowls and trips go is so wide that its hard for me to argue Rodgers being a better QB than Brady.
More talented, sure. But not better to me.
I think LeBron is by far the most talented player in basketball history, but I dont think he's actually better than Jordan.
Most talented does not make you the GOAT. Especially when you only have 1 super bowl trip.
Right or wrong, its the one position in football that is going to be judged on Super Bowl championships. Especially in todays era where the QB has a bigger impacting on winning and losing than it ever has.
Having the most physical skills does not make you the GOAT. Rodgers is the most talented QB i've ever seen, no doubt. Just not the best.
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Win 5 Super Bowls and go to 8 instead of 1.
The gap between the two as far as super bowls and trips go is so wide that its hard for me to argue Rodgers being a better QB than Brady.
More talented, sure. But not better to me.
I think LeBron is by far the most talented player in basketball history, but I dont think he's actually better than Jordan.
Most talented does not make you the GOAT. Especially when you only have 1 super bowl trip.
Right or wrong, its the one position in football that is going to be judged on Super Bowl championships. Especially in todays era where the QB has a bigger impacting on winning and losing than it ever has.
Having the most physical skills does not make you the GOAT. Rodgers is the most talented QB i've ever seen, no doubt. Just not the best.
Dan Marino should have taught you at a young age that this argument is complete bullshit.
I'm not talking about team accomplishments that involve the greatest coach of all time.
I'm talking about as a QB. Skill sets. What makes Brady better than Rodgers as a player?
Skill sets does not make you the better player. Just means you're more talented. I dont think anyone will ever argue that Rodgers isnt more talented than Brady. I dont think anyone would argue that LeBron isnt more talented than Jordan.
I'm not talking about team accomplishments that involve the greatest coach of all time.
I'm talking about as a QB. Skill sets. What makes Brady better than Rodgers as a player?
Because he won. Its that simple. You can have all the talent in the world but if you cannot win it, or you throw a badly timed interception to the NY Giants in the NFC championship game, it doesnt matter.
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Win 5 Super Bowls and go to 8 instead of 1.
The gap between the two as far as super bowls and trips go is so wide that its hard for me to argue Rodgers being a better QB than Brady.
More talented, sure. But not better to me.
I think LeBron is by far the most talented player in basketball history, but I dont think he's actually better than Jordan.
Most talented does not make you the GOAT. Especially when you only have 1 super bowl trip.
Right or wrong, its the one position in football that is going to be judged on Super Bowl championships. Especially in todays era where the QB has a bigger impacting on winning and losing than it ever has.
Having the most physical skills does not make you the GOAT. Rodgers is the most talented QB i've ever seen, no doubt. Just not the best.
Dan Marino should have taught you at a young age that this argument is complete bullshit.
It's not complete horse shit. Definitely not in todays game. Marino not winning a Super Bowl is exactly why he's not in the discussion for greatest of all time. Hall of fame quarterback, but if you want to be in the GOAT discussion sorry you have to win and win at least a few.
Brady is just a remarkable football player even today at his age, it's insane what he's doing.
Bradshaw played on teams with all time defenses. Brady has never had a defense like that at any point. Hell he's been to super bowls with all time bad level defenses.
make you better than a player. But when you add in everything else that Brady has done an accomplished over his career, it's hard to come up with a legitimate argument for someone else being the GOAT. Being the most talented is not the question. That Rodgers wins going away. He makes throws at times that you never see other quarterbacks make ever.
make you better than a player. But when you add in everything else that Brady has done an accomplished over his career, it's hard to come up with a legitimate argument for someone else being the GOAT. Being the most talented is not the question. That Rodgers wins going away. He makes throws at times that you never see other quarterbacks make ever.
Exactly what Brady has done isnt just generational, its become multi-generational.
You have to be able to separate the player from the team. This way of arguing gives Trent Dilfer credit as a QB because he won a Super Bowl. It gives Brad Johnson more credit than Marino. It makes Nick Foles relevant.
Does anyone honestly think the Patriots would be any less successful with Rodgers instead of Brady?
It should be about the players. Not team accomplishments.
Jim Brown won what... 1 Super Bowl? I guess Franco Harris was better.
You have to be able to separate the player from the team. This way of arguing gives Trent Dilfer credit as a QB because he won a Super Bowl. It gives Brad Johnson more credit than Marino. It makes Nick Foles relevant.
Does anyone honestly think the Patriots would be any less successful with Rodgers instead of Brady?
It should be about the players. Not team accomplishments.
Jim Brown won what... 1 Super Bowl? I guess Franco Harris was better.
There's no logic there. It's a dumb argument.
Yes if it was 1 maybe 2 SBs I would understand your argument. Its not Dumbe that Brady has been to 8 and won 5! He won the NFL MVP at 40!! Who has been his best receiver Deion Branch? He makes others great.
You have to be able to separate the player from the team. This way of arguing gives Trent Dilfer credit as a QB because he won a Super Bowl. It gives Brad Johnson more credit than Marino. It makes Nick Foles relevant.
Does anyone honestly think the Patriots would be any less successful with Rodgers instead of Brady?
It should be about the players. Not team accomplishments.
Jim Brown won what... 1 Super Bowl? I guess Franco Harris was better.
There's no logic there. It's a dumb argument.
Yes, I do think the Patriots would be less successful with Rodgers than Brady. If you put Rodgers on the Patriots starting when Brady was drafted, I dont think they would have played in 8 super bowls over what, 17 years?
Brady's also been much more durable than Rodgers. Part of being the GOAT is durability too. Can't help your team if you're hurt.
No matter how talented a player is, it's hard envisioning any other QB taking the Patriots to 8 Super Bowls. And let's not pretend Brady has been playing with insane talent around him on offense. Nate Solder may have been the Patriots best lineman for a few years. Think about that for a second. Gronk is terrific but he's made a lot of shit shine at WR over the years.
I dont believe any QB in the history of the sport would have taken these patriots teams to 8 super bowls. That number is truly insane and thinking anyone, even Rodgers, could replicate that is insane to me, especially when Rodgers has only played in 1 in his career. So he's going to go from the Packers to the Patriots and that automatically means he'd go to 7 more super bowls?
All top 10 defenses. Two of them the best in the NFL.
The 2011 Patriots defense was remarkably bad defending the pass and he had that team in the Super Bowl. They were so bad in the secondary that they had Julian Edelman playing defensive back in the playoffs.
Look at Brady's defenses in the years he won. Twice he had the best scoring defense in football.
Rodgers has NEVER had that.
The best he had was the 2nd ranked scoring defense. And guess what happened that year? He won the SB.
Brady has played for teams that were better coached and more talented. I don't know how anyone could debate that. Ted Thompson really was not a great GM - he just hit the jackpot on the QB and Rodgers has been covering up holes for years.
Look what happened to the Packers without him last year.
Contrast that with the Pats winning 14 times in 20 tries without Brady.
All top 10 defenses. Two of them the best in the NFL.
The 2011 Patriots defense was remarkably bad defending the pass and he had that team in the Super Bowl. They were so bad in the secondary that they had Julian Edelman playing defensive back in the playoffs.
And they lost... to us. So, since it's all about winning and losing, Tom Brady can't be credited for that season.
trent dilfer argument would make sense if Brady had only been to 2 or 3 super bowls. But he's been to 8. I dont think its crazy to say none of us will ever see a run like this again, and our kids kids probably won't either.
8 Super Bowl appearances on top of the personal accomplishments (stats, MVP's, etc) are what makes him the GOAT imo.
I think those arguing for Rodgers are really just saying he's the most talented quarterback ever, which I would agree with.
There are a lot of external factors, but in todays NFL I just dont think you can argue for another QB as the GOAT who has only been to 1 superbowl
All top 10 defenses. Two of them the best in the NFL.
The 2011 Patriots defense was remarkably bad defending the pass and he had that team in the Super Bowl. They were so bad in the secondary that they had Julian Edelman playing defensive back in the playoffs.
And they lost... to us. So, since it's all about winning and losing, Tom Brady can't be credited for that season.
It's not all about winning and losing. I penalize Rodgers a lot more for only being to 1 Super Bowl than only winning 1.
Brady has the entire package to back up being the GOAT. It's not just super bowl appearances, the numbers are there too. MVP's, stats, etc. It's all there. He doesn't have the skill set that Rodgers does, but the actual results have been a good deal better and im not sure how thats even debatable at this point
Also, if we're going on durability - Rodgers has missed like 18 games in his career.
Brady has missed... 15?
They're pretty close.
Brady has basically had only one season impacted at all by injuries in his career.
Rodgers seems to every couple years have something that slows him down. Collar bones, knee this year. If Rodgers doesn't bang up his knee week 1 I doubt they are sitting at 3-3-1
I mean, I guess people just have different definitions of the greats.
Favre only won 1 SB. Marino won 0.
And those were two of the best QB's I've ever watched in my entire life.
Brady has been remarkable. I just think it's crazy to discount players based on Super Bowls.
Arc I dont discount them at all. I just think you have Brady at number 1 and then you have a whole bunch of debatable guys at number 2, and I dont think its close between them. Rodgers is a great QB, but Brady is the best ever and I cant find any reason to say otherwise.
I mean, I guess people just have different definitions of the greats.
Favre only won 1 SB. Marino won 0.
And those were two of the best QB's I've ever watched in my entire life.
Brady has been remarkable. I just think it's crazy to discount players based on Super Bowls.
We're talking about the greatest QB of all time. It's not like Rodgers blows Brady away in the stats department. Considering that the numbers and stats are pretty similar, why would you use anything except for Super Bowls to separate the two.
Instead of using Super Bowls, you're using "skill set" to separate the two players. Which one seems more silly to you? Super Bowls or skill set when determining the greatest of all time whose numbers are comparable except in the most important one?
I mean, I guess people just have different definitions of the greats.
Favre only won 1 SB. Marino won 0.
And those were two of the best QB's I've ever watched in my entire life.
Brady has been remarkable. I just think it's crazy to discount players based on Super Bowls.
We're talking about the greatest QB of all time. It's not like Rodgers blows Brady away in the stats department. Considering that the numbers and stats are pretty similar, why would you use anything except for Super Bowls to separate the two.
Instead of using Super Bowls, you're using "skill set" to separate the two players. Which one seems more silly to you? Super Bowls or skill set when determining the greatest of all time whose numbers are comparable except in the most important one?
Brady also has a .780 winning percentage. Thats insane.
I mean, I guess people just have different definitions of the greats.
Favre only won 1 SB. Marino won 0.
And those were two of the best QB's I've ever watched in my entire life.
Brady has been remarkable. I just think it's crazy to discount players based on Super Bowls.
We're talking about the greatest QB of all time. It's not like Rodgers blows Brady away in the stats department. Considering that the numbers and stats are pretty similar, why would you use anything except for Super Bowls to separate the two.
Instead of using Super Bowls, you're using "skill set" to separate the two players. Which one seems more silly to you? Super Bowls or skill set when determining the greatest of all time whose numbers are comparable except in the most important one?
Rodgers isn't some workout warrior QB - now you're talking about him like he's Jeff George.
Drew Brees has won once. ONCE! He's one of the best players to ever play football. He's a lock for the HoF.
One SB. That's the only one he's ever played in.
Teams don't do what the Pats have done with an elite QB alone. They just don't.
To find examples of the Patriots advancing to or won the SB when all probability would say they shouldn't have, not because of Brady heroics but because of events outside his control. The Chargers choke against them is one example. Same with the Falcons. He made plays in each, sure, but a slight twist of fate here and there and his SB win total takes a huge hit.
He's clearly legendary. But it's not egregious to think of Rodgers being more dangerous or skilled.
like people are saying you can't be an all time great if you only went to 1 super bowl or won only 1.
No one has said that or even come close to saying that here.
This is a debate about being the GOAT. The only "edge" of any sort that Rodgers has is his skill set.
No one is saying Rodgers isnt a lock hall of famer or an amazing QB. We're just saying he's not the GOAT and the guy who has everything numbers wise and record wise is.
What besides being more talented makes Rodgers the goat?
Rodgers has won 2 league MVP's. Brady 3. I know that brady has played a lot longer, they'll probably wind up with the same amount of league MVP's when all is said and done, I can see Rodgers winning another at some point, probably not two though.
Honestly, is there anything you can point to outside of being more talented which no one will even argue on here. Rodgers is zero question more talented. But everything else is pretty even. Except Super Bowls where it isnt even remotely close.
Look at Brady's defenses in the years he won. Twice he had the best scoring defense in football.
Rodgers has NEVER had that.
The best he had was the 2nd ranked scoring defense. And guess what happened that year? He won the SB.
Brady has played for teams that were better coached and more talented. I don't know how anyone could debate that. Ted Thompson really was not a great GM - he just hit the jackpot on the QB and Rodgers has been covering up holes for years.
Look what happened to the Packers without him last year.
Contrast that with the Pats winning 14 times in 20 tries without Brady.
That doesn't matter?
This should have ended the thread. Absolute home run of a post.
We are just giving credit in different areas when it comes to who we think is the greatest ever.
You are putting more of the weight into results and winning - I am isolating the players and comparing them individually.
Neither is necessarily right or wrong.
But I don't think it's debatable that Brady has had a far better coach. He's also had better defenses. That stuff matters.
When I watch Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady, I just don't see Brady do anything that Rodgers can't.
From a talent standpoint, Rodgers is the better player - Brady has had far more success. But it's the NFL... there are so many other factors that impact overall wins and losses.
Anyway... this argument is detracting from a pretty good football game. It is what it is.
RE: Sending a punt rush on 4th and 22 in a tie game?
if we're comparing them individually and taking the "skill set" out of the equation, what numbers or stats can you actually point to and say "Rodgers has a clear advantage here". Genuinely curious.
I would still take Montana over anyone and feel good about it
if we're comparing them individually and taking the "skill set" out of the equation, what numbers or stats can you actually point to and say "Rodgers has a clear advantage here". Genuinely curious.
It's not about stats. Blake Bortles threw for like 4500 yards and 35 TDs a few years ago.
My opinion is borne out of watching both guys all these years.
I personally think Rodgers has carried a lot of crappy teams, he has had a far worse coach, and his escapability/ability to throw darts on the run is something Brady cannot physically do.
There is literally nothing Tom Brady does as a QB that I don't think Rodgers is capable of. He's more talented.
Winning is a product of many other factors. The Giants have absolutely no shot at winning our last SB unless the defense stepped up. They did. Eli made brilliant plays when he needed to. But if the defense hadn't come together and gotten healthy at that point, there's no chance we win that year.
Like I've said many times - look at what the Packers turned into without Rodgers and look at what the Pats turned into without Brady. GB went like 3-8 without Rodgers. NE had no problem winning games without Brady. They won the majority of them.
I know this is the nature of the beast in the day and age of ESPN, NFL network top ten lists and who is the best of all time, etc. but the argument gets a little ridiculous after while. Brady, Rodgers, Montana, Manning, Elway, Unitas.... They were/are are all in the conversation. There are so many x factors involved in what makes "the greatest" that it a rabbit hole I prefer not to go down.
What I do know is I would sure as hell love to have a 22 year old version of any one of them drafted next April
records, wins, and rings that Brady has there would not be a Giant fan alive that would say he Rodgers is the greatest ever because of his skill set...
RE: I would still take Montana over anyone and feel good about it
Yeah Rodgers has more physical talent than Brady, but physical ability isn't the end all be all.
Here's something Brady has been able to do that Rodgers has not: stay consistently healthy. That matters.
Terps, I feel like this is the Elway-Montana debate just being rehashed 30 years later.
Montana had the structure, great coaching (and overall staff), and the W's that followed.
Elway had incredible talent and dragged a bunch of bums to the Super Bowl with questionable coaching, and yet when they lost, he got all the blame. But from pure talent, he and Rodgers may be the greatest I've ever seen.
QBs have more influence than any other single player on the field, but not more influence than the rest of the players combined.
A QB is only on the field for about 40-45% of plays. That means that the majority of the plays in the game, the QB has absolutely zero impact. And when he's on the field, his play is still dependent on the work of 10 other teammates.
If Brady's offensive line sucked and couldn't run block or pass protect, he would have 0 Super Bowl rings.
if we're comparing them individually and taking the "skill set" out of the equation, what numbers or stats can you actually point to and say "Rodgers has a clear advantage here". Genuinely curious.
It's not about stats. Blake Bortles threw for like 4500 yards and 35 TDs a few years ago.
My opinion is borne out of watching both guys all these years.
I personally think Rodgers has carried a lot of crappy teams, he has had a far worse coach, and his escapability/ability to throw darts on the run is something Brady cannot physically do.
There is literally nothing Tom Brady does as a QB that I don't think Rodgers is capable of. He's more talented.
Winning is a product of many other factors. The Giants have absolutely no shot at winning our last SB unless the defense stepped up. They did. Eli made brilliant plays when he needed to. But if the defense hadn't come together and gotten healthy at that point, there's no chance we win that year.
Like I've said many times - look at what the Packers turned into without Rodgers and look at what the Pats turned into without Brady. GB went like 3-8 without Rodgers. NE had no problem winning games without Brady. They won the majority of them.
Those Superbowls all went through Bradys arm though. He may have had some good defenses but the defenses rankings can easily get inflated by Brady driving and scoring at will against other teams. If you are suddenly down 20 in the blink of an eye, defenses know you are gonna have to throw to stay in the game and adjust accordingly.
Ill give you that possibly Belicheck is a genius, but again its just a question that will never have an answer.
I hate when Patriots pick up fuckups from other teams
Arc and I lived in Boston for many years, I would love to have any argument against Brady being the best ever, but unfortunately I havent heard one and cant really find one. Hes been incredible for 2 decades now.
RE: I hate when Patriots pick up fuckups from other teams
and they turn into gold... shit, I hope we have that kinda luck with Coleman, but even the Patriots quit on him.
It's not something that just happens to them out of luck. They take the chances because they're bold and are in a position of strength, and confident in their process and culture.
If you're used to the clown show that the Giants' coaching staffs have been since about 2013, watching the Patriots is about as different an experience as can be imagined.
Has too many blemishes on his resume to be considered better than Brady. Same with Brees.
I think Brees is a better passer. Brady a better competitor.
Brees splits outside of a dome are pretty bad. Theres nothing glaring like that on Bradys resume.
Brady has had a remarkable career. Won SBs with no names and cast offs early in his career. Got the better of Peyton when everyone thought Peyton was the lock GOAT. Insane amount of SB appearances and wins in an era thats damn near impossible to build a dynasty. Plenty of records. Plenty of comeback wins. Flawless career outside of the few SB losses.
Rodgers OL looks like they been watching film on the Giants!
Brees splits outside of a dome are pretty bad. Theres nothing glaring like that on Bradys resume.
Brady has had a remarkable career. Won SBs with no names and cast offs early in his career. Got the better of Peyton when everyone thought Peyton was the lock GOAT. Insane amount of SB appearances and wins in an era thats damn near impossible to build a dynasty. Plenty of records. Plenty of comeback wins. Flawless career outside of the few SB losses.
Really good point about Brees. He's a very good QB, but playing in a dome has distorted his production. Rating is 10 points less and his TD/INT ratio is worse (2.61 (H) vs 1.79 (R)).
theres an incredible coaching and personnel disparity between him and Brady, its massive in my opinion. I dont think Brady would have had this career anywhere else, where Rodgers would be Rodgers practically everywhere else with a ton of room to grow if he played for a better coach/GM.
His RB was James White, Julian Edelman and castaway Josh Gordon his WR's.
He was missing starting OL last week.
but, it's all Belichick and Scar. Sure it is.
I can't stand him and think he's a major douche (his persona at least - I do admire his charitable work)
I hate to say it, but Davante Adams, Randall Cobb, Jimmy Graham, Aaron Jones is probably better skill guys than the Patriots have and the Pack OL has more pro-bowlers than the Patriots.
hes had a masterful career. Just because I like Rodgers more doesnt really mean anything. But McCarthy is an a solute bum, and Belichick is the best in the leagues history. Its the single biggest difference in the two players careers and it matters more than anything.
Yeah Rodgers has more physical talent than Brady, but physical ability isn't the end all be all.
Here's something Brady has been able to do that Rodgers has not: stay consistently healthy. That matters.
Terps, I feel like this is the Elway-Montana debate just being rehashed 30 years later.
Montana had the structure, great coaching (and overall staff), and the W's that followed.
Elway had incredible talent and dragged a bunch of bums to the Super Bowl with questionable coaching, and yet when they lost, he got all the blame. But from pure talent, he and Rodgers may be the greatest I've ever seen.
We must subscribe to the same newsletter. I've thought for a while now that Rodgers is the evolutionary Elway. Rodgers a little more brittle than Elway and a lesser athlete, but a more pure and electric passer.
Elway has always been the guy I wanted at QB if you had one game to play anytime, anywhere, but Rodgers may have taken that mantle.
But I think people tend to give too much of the credit to Brady and not enough to BB.
From top to bottom that organization is run like a machine. They suffer injuries, the adapt. They don't suffer injuries, they evolve. It's no shock Soldier is nothing like the player in NY he was in NE. BB knows when it is time to let guys go and he maximizes everything he gets out of his players.
When I watch the Pats play I don't see Brady greatness, like everyone else. I see 40 guys playing with that greatness. Everyone talks about Brady not having great WRs and they don't understand how things work in NE. They don't throw big $ or high draft picks on prototype tall fast "#1" wideouts. Instead they target guys who are tough, lightning quick, sure handed, and great route runners, and they get them a hell of a lot cheaper.
We rip Eli for throwing short of the sticks on 3rd downs --have you watched the Pats??? That's all the do is throw short, but they spread it out to 4-5 guys and defenses have no idea where it's going and anyone of them will make the tough catch and slip a tackle. The timing is perfect.
Game on the line, I watch Patriots player after player make the play when it's needed. Even backup guys and on both sides of the ball. Brady gets all the credit, but they all make the plays. How many times has Eli thrown a catchable ball in critical situation and is dropped? In the Patriots uniform, their receivers will make the catch, or defender makes the tackle, or whatever it is they need. They do the fundamental things better than everyone else and BB knows that guys who do the fundamentals, are tough and smart get passed up in draft for guys who are bigger, taller, faster, etc. and he cashes in his picks to load up on the prior. This is the big advantage for having the head coach also be the guy making decisions on personnel.
But I think people tend to give too much of the credit to Brady and not enough to BB.
From top to bottom that organization is run like a machine. They suffer injuries, the adapt. They don't suffer injuries, they evolve. It's no shock Soldier is nothing like the player in NY he was in NE. BB knows when it is time to let guys go and he maximizes everything he gets out of his players.
When I watch the Pats play I don't see Brady greatness, like everyone else. I see 40 guys playing with that greatness. Everyone talks about Brady not having great WRs and they don't understand how things work in NE. They don't throw big $ or high draft picks on prototype tall fast "#1" wideouts. Instead they target guys who are tough, lightning quick, sure handed, and great route runners, and they get them a hell of a lot cheaper.
We rip Eli for throwing short of the sticks on 3rd downs --have you watched the Pats??? That's all the do is throw short, but they spread it out to 4-5 guys and defenses have no idea where it's going and anyone of them will make the tough catch and slip a tackle. The timing is perfect.
Game on the line, I watch Patriots player after player make the play when it's needed. Even backup guys and on both sides of the ball. Brady gets all the credit, but they all make the plays. How many times has Eli thrown a catchable ball in critical situation and is dropped? In the Patriots uniform, their receivers will make the catch, or defender makes the tackle, or whatever it is they need. They do the fundamental things better than everyone else and BB knows that guys who do the fundamentals, are tough and smart get passed up in draft for guys who are bigger, taller, faster, etc. and he cashes in his picks to load up on the prior. This is the big advantage for having the head coach also be the guy making decisions on personnel.
Nothing original here, but what you need to ask yourself is would this "system" work without Brady?
He's the one constant making that offense run and everyone wants to give Belichick more credit because he's the GOAT as a HC, but his defenses have left something to be desired the past 4 or 5 seasons and it's the offense that has carried the team.
Sure, some people point to 2008 when Matt Cassel replaced Brady and the Patriots went 11 - 5. What people don't mention because it doesn't fit their narrative is that a) the Patriots had historically the 2nd easiest schedule in NFL 16-game season history and b) their record was 5 games worse than the prior season. That's significant.
IMV it's another Brady vs Peyton debate. That was very lopsided early on, everyone felt Peyton was the better QB, now almost no one with a valuable opinion feels that way.
I believe both Belichick and Brady are needed to have the success they've had. I also believe 100% Brady could have success elsewhere, probably the same 1 SB success Rodgers or Brees have had if a 2nd SB. And I don't know if Belichick wins 5 SB's with Rodgers or Brees and the same supporting cast. Or any other QB.
He's an all time great. But he doesn't win all those rings in any other uniform.
As I said, everyone makes the plays the Pats need to win, not just Brady. You say the defense is bad, but even when the defense isn't a strength statistically, they still make the plays they need. Their wins and losses are not one guy carrying them. Special teams, defensive secondary, running backs, receivers, Oline, whoever. In those key situations that decide football games, the men in Pats uniforms make the plays. Period.
That's what I see.
The Patriots defense is 11th in the league in scoring
He's an all time great. But he doesn't win all those rings in any other uniform.
As I said, everyone makes the plays the Pats need to win, not just Brady. You say the defense is bad, but even when the defense isn't a strength statistically, they still make the plays they need. Their wins and losses are not one guy carrying them. Special teams, defensive secondary, running backs, receivers, Oline, whoever. In those key situations that decide football games, the men in Pats uniforms make the plays. Period.
That's what I see.
Did you watch the Super Bowl last year? That painful, awful Super Bowl?
the Patriots D got shredded. Brady shredded the Eagles D.
In the end there was no play by the Patriots D.
RE: RE: Of course Brady would have succeeded elsewhere
He's an all time great. But he doesn't win all those rings in any other uniform.
As I said, everyone makes the plays the Pats need to win, not just Brady. You say the defense is bad, but even when the defense isn't a strength statistically, they still make the plays they need. Their wins and losses are not one guy carrying them. Special teams, defensive secondary, running backs, receivers, Oline, whoever. In those key situations that decide football games, the men in Pats uniforms make the plays. Period.
That's what I see.
Did you watch the Super Bowl last year? That painful, awful Super Bowl?
the Patriots D got shredded. Brady shredded the Eagles D.
In the end there was no play by the Patriots D.
You are talking about one game, LOL. A game they lost I'm not sure how this contradicts my point. So Brady doesn't win it all on his own? Gee...
I think it's important to state that these guys are competing to be the best QB of htis generation. Its really unfair to compare them to the greats of other eras when the game has changed so much. You cannot hit QB's anymore. You can't play defense anymore. The game is geared towards QB's in this era.
My answer is simple..Brady. This conversation sounds a lot like Brady vs Peyton from 5-10 years ago. That's why my answer is Brady. The guy has been doing it for a really long time. It's like in baseball, there were plenty of closers that had better seasons than Mo, but when you look back, was Eric Gagne better than Mo? No because Mo did it for so long. Brady's longevity and success is second to none and that means something. I would agree that Rodgers is more physically gifted, but as of now, the answer is easily Brady.
You also can't discredit the winning, that's kinda important. To suggest that its all BB and then reference one season in which they won a bunch of regular season games(how'd that postseason go?) with a backup is just silly. It's like choosing Romo over Eli. Romo is more physically gifted, but Eli got it done when it mattered most.
He's an all time great. But he doesn't win all those rings in any other uniform.
As I said, everyone makes the plays the Pats need to win, not just Brady. You say the defense is bad, but even when the defense isn't a strength statistically, they still make the plays they need. Their wins and losses are not one guy carrying them. Special teams, defensive secondary, running backs, receivers, Oline, whoever. In those key situations that decide football games, the men in Pats uniforms make the plays. Period.
That's what I see.
Did you watch the Super Bowl last year? That painful, awful Super Bowl?
the Patriots D got shredded. Brady shredded the Eagles D.
In the end there was no play by the Patriots D.
You are talking about one game, LOL. A game they lost I'm not sure how this contradicts my point. So Brady doesn't win it all on his own? Gee...
That one game was obviously one example because you stated you always see someone on defense stepping up to make a play. It also just happened to be the biggest game and the reason you play all the others. LOL.
We had this debate 1-2 years ago on here when it was about Eli > Brees. Talk was about Elis numbers in a dome (not much better than outside dome) and Brees outside and in cold. His Completion %, Td to Int, and QB rating was still HOF stuff in all of those road games.
Aren't the greatest ever supposed to elevate everyone around them regardless of the situation?
That's what I've been told over and over and over again here on this forum.
Now we're saying Rodgers can't win because he never had the best scoring defense? I didn't read the whole thread, but is that what is being said?
Not for nothing, but in 2011 we went in to Green Bay, who was 15-1 and Rodgers was the MVP, and beat them at home in the playoffs.
Our scoring defense was ranked 25th.
And as argued that when the Packers did have a great defense they won the Superbowl.... They were also a Desean Jackson miracle punt return against the Giants from not making the playoffs at all. Now I'm not about "if's and but's", but it's not like they were some dominate sure thing to win the Superbowl because all the sudden their defense was good and that was the tipping point.
I'm not arguing that Rodgers isn't great, but c'mon. That argument goes against everything claimed here for years.
The context of those statements were about where the credit is deserved for the Pats success. And we are talking about a history of over 10 years, so discussing one game is absurd. Not to mention that Tom Brady did not get credit for winning, because they didnt win. The fact that the Defense didn't come through and led to their losing supports the argument that the Pats success is a full team effort, not all Brady brilliance.
The Patriots have done it in so many ways over the years. Sometimes the defense has been the strength, many times it has been the offense. And you can't just look at generic stats like yardage ranking. That is the whole point --that's how everyone else looks at things, but not how the Patriots operate. It's exactly why everyone concludes the Pats don't have good wide receivers because they don't win yardage trophies and make probowls. But if you watch how the Pats win games, their wide receivers are fatnastic at doign the things BB needs them to do. Hanging on to that critical 3rd down catch over the middle as a linebacker tried to decapitate you won't win anyone's fantasy league for them, but that's exactly how the Patriots win football games.
Is excellent. Hes lower than in a Done but theyre also all away games. But his numbers are HOF level playing outside. Same with cold weather.
No hes not. Hes also blown a few SB shots with below expectation performances in road playoff games.
Which one's were they supposed to win that he blew?
The Saints playoff L's after winning their Super Bowl:
2010 at Seattle (defense gives up 41)
2011 at San Francisco (Brees drives for the game leading TD with 1:37 left, but the defense allows Alex Smith to drive for the W in the last seconds to face the Giants in the NFC Title Game)
NOTE - I contend to this day if the Saints hold on to win, they go back to the Super Bowl because they would have beaten the Giants the next week.
2013 at Seattle - Seattle great defense at home shuts them down similar to what happened in a previous game weeks earlier. Not unexpected.
2017 at Minnesota - Game was won until the final play when the defender brain cramped and Diggs ran for the walkoff TD.
Which one of these should Brees have carried them to victory? 2 of the 4 games they had the lead with 20 SECONDS REMAINING only to take the L.
Rodgers carries guys on his back. He makes guys like Cobb, Nelson and the rest. He makes the OL. He elevates the okay of his offensive unit as good as anybody ever.
Even this year, while injured, and a lot of his offensive guys hurt he has a 15 to 1 TD to INT rate.
Rodgers carries guys on his back. He makes guys like Cobb, Nelson and the rest. He makes the OL. He elevates the okay of his offensive unit as good as anybody ever.
Even this year, while injured, and a lot of his offensive guys hurt he has a 15 to 1 TD to INT rate.
He isnt carrying this team and elevating guys?
This is a comparison of Rodgers to Brady, is it not?
is only on the field for 45% of the plays, and when he's on the field, he depends on 10 other guys. QB records are overrated.
Last night, I saw two great QBs make some great throws, miss some throws, and I saw two QBs have protection that would have been a wet dream for Eli over the last few years. It seemed like the only time they were under pressure was when the defenses blitzed, leaving favorable match-ups for the receivers.
I saw two QBs hand the ball off 47 combined times, and only one one time did the run go for negative yards (and it was for -1 yard). Meanwhile over 14% of Barkley's runs go for negative yards.
---------------------------
I thought Rodgers was better last night. The difference in the game was Aaron Jones fumbling, the roughing the kicker, and the Patriots working more cleverly with Patterson as a RB and the flea-flicker-- all things that are reflective more of Belichick getting his guys to "do their jobs" better than McCarthy got his guys to do so.
RE: That 2011 defense also shut down Brady in the SB
I find it hysterical how you give the Giants defense all the props for 2011 postseason and saying how great they were yet never mention how NO's defense dominated in their Title run. Shutting down Peyton in the SB including a pick 6. forcing 5 TOs in a the NFC Championship game. Shutting down Warner/Fitzgerald in the first round.
Why dont you say NO's defense carried them to a title like the 2011 Giants did?
But I saw Montana in his prime, when QBs could get hit (see the hits he took against Jim Burt and Leonard Marshall - unlike this era which is embarrassingly soft), and he was astonishingly great. To this day, despite not having the huge arm, he was the best long ball thrower I have ever seen. The guy always seemed to hit Rice, Taylor, Clark, Solomon, etc in stride. He is why that team was always so great in YAC.
Brady is a great one trick pony - in the pocket. Montana was great in and out of the pocket.
Rodgers is Montana with a better arm and even more athleticism. I have no problem assuming that if he played in New England he'd have a few more rings.
Giants D started by scoring and held them 2 TDS below their season average. Brady couldnt throw the ball down the field. He threw it 40+ times and avg under 7 YPA.
RE: RE: That 2011 defense also shut down Brady in the SB
Is excellent. Hes lower than in a Done but theyre also all away games. But his numbers are HOF level playing outside. Same with cold weather.
No hes not. Hes also blown a few SB shots with below expectation performances in road playoff games.
Which one's were they supposed to win that he blew?
The Saints playoff L's after winning their Super Bowl:
2010 at Seattle (defense gives up 41)
2011 at San Francisco (Brees drives for the game leading TD with 1:37 left, but the defense allows Alex Smith to drive for the W in the last seconds to face the Giants in the NFC Title Game)
NOTE - I contend to this day if the Saints hold on to win, they go back to the Super Bowl because they would have beaten the Giants the next week.
2013 at Seattle - Seattle great defense at home shuts them down similar to what happened in a previous game weeks earlier. Not unexpected.
2017 at Minnesota - Game was won until the final play when the defender brain cramped and Diggs ran for the walkoff TD.
Which one of these should Brees have carried them to victory? 2 of the 4 games they had the lead with 20 SECONDS REMAINING only to take the L.
Brees had 3 turnovers vs Minny last year. Sure the defense blew it, but the fact remains hes a different guy at home vs on the road. If they played that game in NO last year the Saints win by two scores.
Hes a great QB. But when were talking about the greatest, I cant causually dismiss the fact thats hes noticeably different on the road. Hell, even the commentators mentioned it in the Rams game.
Giants D started by scoring and held them 2 TDS below their season average. Brady couldnt throw the ball down the field. He threw it 40+ times and avg under 7 YPA.
Because they didnt have the ball. And when they did, they moved it quite effectively. When your offense holds the ball for the entire game, its hard for the team to score. Pus, are you giving the defense for a blown coverage and missed passed that would have ended the game? Here are the Giants drives by number of plays.....
10
9
8
7
10
9
10
9
8 drives, all lasting at leas 7 plays. 37:00 minutes worth of possessions. You know where NE started their drives? 16 yard line. I am sorry, but the offense won us the SB, much like they did in SB 25 - by keeping the more explosive offense OFF the field.
If you want to give the defense all the credit, your agenda will remain constant. By if Brady hits a WIDE OPEN Welker.... the game is over and we lose.
RE: RE: RE: That 2011 defense also shut down Brady in the SB
It's this talk that he's the greatest football player ever.
I just can't buy that after watching players like LT, Reggie White, Ronnie Lott, Jerry Rice, etc. Players who were using speed, strength, quickness, etc to change the game.
Brady is nowhere in that category of athlete/player. He plays a critical position that, ironically, requires less and less ability and skill to absorb physical contract. And for me, that just isn't football anymore...
RE: I tell you what bothers my more about Brady...
It's this talk that he's the greatest football player ever.
I just can't buy that after watching players like LT, Reggie White, Ronnie Lott, Jerry Rice, etc. Players who were using speed, strength, quickness, etc to change the game.
Brady is nowhere in that category of athlete/player. He plays a critical position that, ironically, requires less and less ability and skill to absorb physical contract. And for me, that just isn't football anymore...
But you're discounting the fact that Brady straddles two different eras in the NFL, and won multiple championships in both.
He won his first three Superbowls in an era that was absolutely more violent, as well as a lot harder to play offensive football where the defenders could mug WR's (pre-Polian Peyton rule changing), a strategy that the Patriots themselves utilized to perfection.
I mean, let's not forget how the Tom Brady era began....
It's this talk that he's the greatest football player ever.
I just can't buy that after watching players like LT, Reggie White, Ronnie Lott, Jerry Rice, etc. Players who were using speed, strength, quickness, etc to change the game.
Brady is nowhere in that category of athlete/player. He plays a critical position that, ironically, requires less and less ability and skill to absorb physical contract. And for me, that just isn't football anymore...
But you're discounting the fact that Brady straddles two different eras in the NFL, and won multiple championships in both.
He won his first three Superbowls in an era that was absolutely more violent, as well as a lot harder to play offensive football where the defenders could mug WR's (pre-Polian Peyton rule changing), a strategy that the Patriots themselves utilized to perfection.
Let's be honest - the first SB was more Vinatieri than Brady. The two kicks he made in the snow against the Raiders in the division game were as good as it gets. And the first one courtesy of the tuck rule. And if you remember, Brady didn't play against the Steelers in the AFC Championship game - Bledsoe did. And then Vinatieri made the greatest clutch kick ever in the SB.
But the point of my post was about this narrative of Brady being the GOAT for any position in football. I just can't wrap my head around that on an "athlete" playing a sport who can't run, has no quickness, and isn't a pillar of football strength like a Roethlisberger.
And the defense got a safety and got the ball right back to us. That kind of one play drive can impact a game...and it did!
They had the ball 9 times. Scored on only 3. Our defense got points on one possession. Had an INT on another. And NE failed to come close to their season average of 32+ points/game.
They could not run the ball.
Brady dropped back 45 times for a net of 266 yards passing.
Giants D started by scoring and held them 2 TDS below their season average. Brady couldnt throw the ball down the field. He threw it 40+ times and avg under 7 YPA.
Because they didnt have the ball. And when they did, they moved it quite effectively. When your offense holds the ball for the entire game, its hard for the team to score. Pus, are you giving the defense for a blown coverage and missed passed that would have ended the game? Here are the Giants drives by number of plays.....
10
9
8
7
10
9
10
9
8 drives, all lasting at leas 7 plays. 37:00 minutes worth of possessions. You know where NE started their drives? 16 yard line. I am sorry, but the offense won us the SB, much like they did in SB 25 - by keeping the more explosive offense OFF the field.
If you want to give the defense all the credit, your agenda will remain constant. By if Brady hits a WIDE OPEN Welker.... the game is over and we lose.
No one is denying the offense didn't play very well (they would have scored more points if not for that stupid phantom holding call on Boothe), but the defense was tremendous.
NE still had the ball 9 times, and only scored on 3 of them. Brady was only sacked twice, but harassed most of the game (not as much as he was harassed/bit in SB 42, of course).
It was a complete effort What I have an issue is with you saying that the defense did "nothing"
dep's point was that KWALL attributes the Giants runs mainly to the defense, while giving credit to guys like Brees for their runs, even though his defense rose to the occasion as well.
At least that's how I read it. And I think it's a valid point.
you use outcomes that do not meet what actually happen.
1st drive - Brady has a mental error and throws it to the wrong place, not realizing what he was doing was wrong. If thats great defense, our standards have dropped dramatically.
2nd drive - 10 plays, 60 yards FG
3rd drive - 3 and out - good defense
4th drive - 14 plays 96 yards TD.
5th drive - 8 plays - 79 yards.
those two drives ended the half started the 2nd half that put us in a whole.
6th drive - 3 and out - great defense
7th drive - 5 plays, 23 yards - where Brady underthrew an open gronk and blackburn made a pick. great play by Chase, but it was a missed opportunity.
8th drive - 11 play drive punt where Brady missed a wide open Welker that would have ended the game. This is not good defense whatsoever. Again, if need to relay on blown coverage missed passes - the standard is low.
9th drive - Pats go 30 yards before the game ended. So we are now counting this as a stop?
Brady really hurt his team this game and it didnt have to do with a pass rush or great defense. He took a bad safety by not throwing it out of bounds. He missed an open Gronk and he missed a wide open Welker. If this constitutes the defense carrying the team on that day - well your agenda continues.
Ill give the proper credit to the offense and special teams controlling the ball and field position.
dep's point was that KWALL attributes the Giants runs mainly to the defense, while giving credit to guys like Brees for their runs, even though his defense rose to the occasion as well.
At least that's how I read it. And I think it's a valid point.
KWALL never has nor will he ever give Eli credit for anything.
We had this debate 1-2 years ago on here when it was about Eli > Brees. Talk was about Elis numbers in a dome (not much better than outside dome) and Brees outside and in cold. His Completion %, Td to Int, and QB rating was still HOF stuff in all of those road games.
Actually, you are the first one to bring up Eli.... but again.... carry on.
dep's point was that KWALL attributes the Giants runs mainly to the defense, while giving credit to guys like Brees for their runs, even though his defense rose to the occasion as well.
At least that's how I read it. And I think it's a valid point.
KWALL never has nor will he ever give Eli credit for anything.
KWALL may (or may not) have an agenda here, but it's pretty clear your Eli narrative is present as well.
It was a team effort, just leave it at that. Geez...
people are acting like rodgers hasnt played with some top end talent for his career. Like every single lineman was trash and he made every WR something out of nothing.
Rodgers is a great, great, great QB. But the fact he has only 1 SB does not put him in the same category as Brady.
RE: RE: RE: Regardless of the one game comparison...
Thats more BS. The point was made the 2011 defense stopped Rodgers and that is a knock on Rodgers in a debate of Rodgers vs Brady.
I pointed out the 2011 defense shut down Brady too.
That's bringing up Eli?
Or not giving him credit.
The point was clear. How can you knock Rodgers for his performance against the 2011 defense when Brady didn't do any better vs that same defense?
But this is about Eli in your world.
Actually you brought up Eli earlier in the thread for reasons unknownst to man (I quoted it for you in case you have a hard time reading). I certainly did not. And I didnt refer a single statement about Eli in regards to SB 46. I mentioned the offense and STs which consists of more players than just Eli.
But carry on.... you have insistently gone on for years that the defense carried the Giants in the playoffs. Its a false narrative and by saying the Ginats shut down Brady in the SB (which they did not, which I proved by examples ,stats, and game play action). Your agenda is clear and to be honest..... boring.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Regardless of the one game comparison...
I am proving that the defense didnt shut down the Patriots which has been inferred to many times on this thread. I am in belief that the offense and special teams played a larger point in the win. Outside of tuck and chase making a play... out defnese was really non existent. I am not going to give credit to a unit because the other side had colossal fuck ups.
"I proved by examples ,stats, and game play action".
Sure you did.
Um, I did. Did I make up the plays that were missed by Brady and the Pats? Were my TOP and drive information wrong?
Oh I got it. You just dont understand them. My fault. Ill do a better job... lets slow it down for you here.
With 4:06 left in the game and the Patriots up 2, the Patriots had 2nd down. brady dropped back and Wes Welker ran up the slot with NO ONE guaridng him. He was open by 15 yards. Brady threw a pass a little behind him that Welker couldnt bring in on the adjustment. If caught in stride, it most likely goes for a touchdown. If caught irregardless, its a first down in FG range and the Giants would be forced to burn timeouts with NO guarantee they would get the ball back. A TD ends the game.
See this would be example of a stat line play where the defense gets credit for an incompletion when they did NOTHING on the play that would be called good defense. But according to you, it was plays like this that "shut down" Brady - right? hahahahahahahahahaha
If he is the whole offense and STs, then I guess. The fact is the offense and Specials carried us that day. Blwon coverages and misfires doesnt equate to good dfense or shutting down a player,.
Ground. This will be put too simply considering all of the components at play for a team winning a championship. But to isolate it to you two's discussion; qb play and defense had a lot to do with the giants bringing home another championship. Can't we just rest at that? This argument comes up about three or so times each year with the same dialogue.
Ground. This will be put too simply considering all of the components at play for a team winning a championship. But to isolate it to you two's discussion; qb play and defense had a lot to do with the giants bringing home another championship. Can't we just rest at that? This argument comes up about three or so times each year with the same dialogue.
Lot's of things have to happen for a team to win a championship, including breaks and luck. No single guy carries a team to a championship by himself, period.
Even as I mentioned earlier in this thread, as great as Rodgers is, if the Giants don't collapse against the Eagles in 2010 in a game completely unrelated to him, they don't even make the playoffs that year (no Superbowl).
and a huge but-- the bigger reason the Patriots are the dynasty they are is because the overall contribution/production of the other 52 guys on the roster and coaching staff to "do their jobs" year in, year out, and week in, week out, better than the 52 guys and coaching staff on any other team in the league.
the Patriots (or the Brady-less Patriots) are the best team every season or every week. It's that on the whole, the entire organization runs like a machine, and so when that machine has an all-world QB, it will be at an advantage to teams that have all-world QBs but are not as finely-tuned in the execution surrounding the QB.
Ground. This will be put too simply considering all of the components at play for a team winning a championship. But to isolate it to you two's discussion; qb play and defense had a lot to do with the giants bringing home another championship. Can't we just rest at that? This argument comes up about three or so times each year with the same dialogue.
Lot's of things have to happen for a team to win a championship, including breaks and luck. No single guy carries a team to a championship by himself, period.
Even as I mentioned earlier in this thread, as great as Rodgers is, if the Giants don't collapse against the Eagles in 2010 in a game completely unrelated to him, they don't even make the playoffs that year (no Superbowl).
Britt excuse my possible ignorance, are you agreeing with me or adding to my post?
what the Patriots would be without Brady are 100% speculating, no different than the people suggesting Brady is a key/main reason for their success.
It's an opinion and un-answerable premise and there is no information to suggest the outcome should Brady have not been on the Patriots all these years and been instead on a different team with a different QB(s) in New England.
People suggesting one way is a fact come across as major douche bags (no offense and with all due respect)
Ground. This will be put too simply considering all of the components at play for a team winning a championship. But to isolate it to you two's discussion; qb play and defense had a lot to do with the giants bringing home another championship. Can't we just rest at that? This argument comes up about three or so times each year with the same dialogue.
Lot's of things have to happen for a team to win a championship, including breaks and luck. No single guy carries a team to a championship by himself, period.
Even as I mentioned earlier in this thread, as great as Rodgers is, if the Giants don't collapse against the Eagles in 2010 in a game completely unrelated to him, they don't even make the playoffs that year (no Superbowl).
Britt excuse my possible ignorance, are you agreeing with me or adding to my post?
what the Patriots would be without Brady are 100% speculating, no different than the people suggesting Brady is a key/main reason for their success.
It's an opinion and un-answerable premise and there is no information to suggest the outcome should Brady have not been on the Patriots all these years and been instead on a different team with a different QB(s) in New England.
People suggesting one way is a fact come across as major douche bags (no offense and with all due respect)
We can only go on what actually happened, and Brady's resume is second to none. It speaks for itself.
Guys can only play the hand they're dealt, and nobody knows what it would look like if Rodgers and Brady switched places.
I intentionally simplified my comments when discussing what it takes not only just to win one game in the nfl, but to be consistently good enough to win a championship, and yes getting brakes matter.
Ground. This will be put too simply considering all of the components at play for a team winning a championship. But to isolate it to you two's discussion; qb play and defense had a lot to do with the giants bringing home another championship. Can't we just rest at that? This argument comes up about three or so times each year with the same dialogue.
Lot's of things have to happen for a team to win a championship, including breaks and luck. No single guy carries a team to a championship by himself, period.
Even as I mentioned earlier in this thread, as great as Rodgers is, if the Giants don't collapse against the Eagles in 2010 in a game completely unrelated to him, they don't even make the playoffs that year (no Superbowl).
The Pack beat the Bears in the NFC titke game in '10. Bears I think had their third string Qb, since a Cutler had a boo boo, in at one point and I believe the biggest score of the game was a pick six by the Packer Nose Guard. Rodgers threw two picks. His team helped carry him to the Super Bowl. Good luck finding a game where the rest of the Giants carried Eli to a Playoff win.
Teams win football games, no QB can win a title on his own. Although, Eli in 2011 is about as close as I have seen to a QB carrying a team to a title.
Not gonna argue with you, I think Eli did a damn good job....
Football teams win titles. Not one guy. If Brady was on the Giants he would likely be injured. Shurmur would have him dropping back 50 times behind this line.
The Pats are like a machine. They roll year in and year out.
and a huge but-- the bigger reason the Patriots are the dynasty they are is because the overall contribution/production of the other 52 guys on the roster and coaching staff to "do their jobs" year in, year out, and week in, week out, better than the 52 guys and coaching staff on any other team in the league.
I agree with this but this is another feather in Brady's cap if you ask me. He is a big part of building that culture in NE. That type of culture was not built before him. It was built with him. Without Brady, that culture is likely never built.
I am proving that the defense didnt shut down the Patriots which has been inferred to many times on this thread. I am in belief that the offense and special teams played a larger point in the win. Outside of tuck and chase making a play... out defnese was really non existent. I am not going to give credit to a unit because the other side had colossal fuck ups.
OK, fine - the defense did NOTHING that day - outside of Tuck and Blakburn making a few plays - they just got lucky that Brady made two bad passes out of 45 dropbacks.
Game was won due to Eli (I mean, "the offense") even though they only scored 19 points. And ST play.
This sentence should be stickied...
Quote:
the Saints-Rams and the Pats tonight, it is eye opening just how far the Giants are away from actually competing again.
This sentence should be stickied...
It's true I suppose, but could a Rams' fan have said the same thing after their 2016 season in comparison to the top teams that year (NE, ATL, GB)???
Aaron Rodger the GOAT???? WTF are you talking about
Quote:
or does Brady own his ass? I I wouldnt be mad though Brady earned his respect, hard to hate on a guy that gave us 2 super bowls
Aaron Rodger the GOAT???? WTF are you talking about
Did you watch our last playoff game? You know the oneand only
So WTF are you talking about?
So WTF are you talking about?
Lets put it this way. If Rodgers had OBJ and Barkley he would be undeafted
So WTF are you talking about?
I think we're dealing with dupes/trolls or who the hell knows.
Rodgers is the best QB I've ever seen.
So WTF are you talking about?
Rodgers is not in the conversation for greatest ever.
Quote:
I think a lot of informed people think Rodgers is in the GOAT conversation.
So WTF are you talking about?
Rodgers is not in the conversation for greatest ever.
Ummm, yes, he is.
Quote:
I think a lot of informed people think Rodgers is in the GOAT conversation.
So WTF are you talking about?
Rodgers is not in the conversation for greatest ever.
LOL. What have you been watching the last 10 years?
I have a hard time actually putting him there because he's only won 1 title and only played in 1 super bowl.
But the guy is as talented as they've ever come.
It's impossible to put him on Brady's level except for talent though imo
Quote:
In comment 14164836 KWALL2 said:
Quote:
I think a lot of informed people think Rodgers is in the GOAT conversation.
So WTF are you talking about?
Rodgers is not in the conversation for greatest ever.
LOL. What have you been watching the last 10 years?
Watching Tom Brady dominate the sport of football. In just about every possible way. You?
I have a hard time actually putting him there because he's only won 1 title and only played in 1 super bowl.
But the guy is as talented as they've ever come.
It's impossible to put him on Brady's level except for talent though imo
Exactly
Its the coaching, roster is the same thing maybe worse. Pats best wr is Gorden that guy is a drug addict and admits that he plays high
Can you put Barry Sanders on Franco Harris level?
It s a team sport. Hes one guy. And that one guy is right there with anybody.
Quote:
In comment 14164846 mattyblue said:
Quote:
In comment 14164836 KWALL2 said:
Quote:
I think a lot of informed people think Rodgers is in the GOAT conversation.
So WTF are you talking about?
Rodgers is not in the conversation for greatest ever.
LOL. What have you been watching the last 10 years?
Watching Tom Brady dominate the sport of football. In just about every possible way. You?
Me?
I've been watching a QB who is elusive, accurate, has a cannon arm, and throws more accurately on the run than just about anyone I've ever seen.
Aaron Rodgers has carried a lot of these Packers teams. Look what they turned into last year when Hundley was under center. They were barely even competitive.
Do you think NE would have any less hardware if you switched Brady and Rodgers?
thats really the joke...right?
For me its Rodgers and Brady at the top. But I would take Rodgers to start a team if both guys were 22.
They won 14 of those 20 games.
I'm not looking to discount Tom Brady - he's had an incredible career and he's certainly worthy of "GOAT" consideration.
I just think Aaron Rodgers is a better QB.
Can you put Barry Sanders on Franco Harris level?
It s a team sport. Hes one guy. And that one guy is right there with anybody.
It's a team sport, but the QB has much more control of the outcome than the running back position does.
Rodgers is definitely up there. But it's hard to convince someone that he's as good or better than Brady when he's only played in 1 super bowl.
Brady has played in 8. We're not talking about 3 vs 1. 8 vs 1
thats really the joke...right?
For me its Rodgers and Brady at the top. But I would take Rodgers to start a team if both guys were 22.
It completely about Brady. The foobarz or whatever his name is declared lets see who the real GOAT is my point is that there is no conversation about the best QB ever. You cant talk about if this guy was on this team etc... Brady won 5 Superbowls. Completely has dominated the sport. Brady, and it will always pain me to say, is undeniably the greatest ever.
They moved the time up in brazil. Its 12am here and the game just in second quarter. This looks like one of those games that who ever gets the ball last wins
Solder plays fine there and then he comes to the Giants and sucks shit.
Bill Belichick is likely never bill belichick without Tom Brady. Both of them built this. Together. Not one more than the other imo.
Ask Dan Marino.
And Rodgers is much better than Marino.
The coaching in NE is a huge factor. So is the division. Its never a tough road to win the division with Mia, Buf and NYJ (and lock up the #1 seed).
For me, its just the talent. Brady is great no doubt but Rodgers is the guy I would take.
Thats just your opinion. Belicheck has done nothing without Brady, and I doubt we will ever see what happens if they parted.
Quote:
Brady is clearly on the conversation but he said Rodgers in the conversation is a joke.
thats really the joke...right?
For me its Rodgers and Brady at the top. But I would take Rodgers to start a team if both guys were 22.
It completely about Brady. The foobarz or whatever his name is declared lets see who the real GOAT is my point is that there is no conversation about the best QB ever. You cant talk about if this guy was on this team etc... Brady won 5 Superbowls. Completely has dominated the sport. Brady, and it will always pain me to say, is undeniably the greatest ever.
Rodger team has always been trash. The gm puts all the weight on rodgers shoulders. They just got rid of their best CB and have no depth. Pats have been in a crappy division, I wanna see Brady do that in Packers division. Bears and vikings are made to attack the QB because of rodgers in their division
Quote:
The difference between Brady and Rodgers is that Mike McCarthy is not even in the same universe as Bill Belichick.
Bill Belichick is likely never bill belichick without Tom Brady. Both of them built this. Together. Not one more than the other imo.
Right - but who is Mike McCarthy without Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers?
Probably no one.
I think Bill is just a much better coach. You're right - Brady has had a huge role in Bill's legacy. But it goes both ways.
I hate to even discount Tom Brady at all - because he's got a very strong case as the greatest ever.
But when I watch these two QB's.. there's nothing I see Tom Brady do that I don't think Aaron Rodgers can.
If I had a completely neutral team and had to take one or the other, I would take Rodgers.
Quote:
The difference between Brady and Rodgers is that Mike McCarthy is not even in the same universe as Bill Belichick.
Thats just your opinion. Belicheck has done nothing without Brady, and I doubt we will ever see what happens if they parted.
He's done nothing without Brady?
He coached an 11-5 team with Matt Cassel in 2008.
He got 11 wins out of the Browns in '94. They haven't won that many games since.
Nonsense.
Its a conversation about two QBs dude. In my opinion you are nuts to say Rodgers is the greatest when comparing them.
Quote:
In comment 14164883 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
The difference between Brady and Rodgers is that Mike McCarthy is not even in the same universe as Bill Belichick.
Thats just your opinion. Belicheck has done nothing without Brady, and I doubt we will ever see what happens if they parted.
He's done nothing without Brady?
He coached an 11-5 team with Matt Cassel in 2008.
He got 11 wins out of the Browns in '94. They haven't won that many games since.
Nonsense.
He was 36-44 with the Browns. Macadoo had a good record one season with the Giants, does it really mean anything?
Brady being Goat? Ok. At worst I have him #2 so I dont know what the hell youre talking about.
Quote:
In comment 14164889 mattyblue said:
Quote:
In comment 14164883 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
The difference between Brady and Rodgers is that Mike McCarthy is not even in the same universe as Bill Belichick.
Thats just your opinion. Belicheck has done nothing without Brady, and I doubt we will ever see what happens if they parted.
He's done nothing without Brady?
He coached an 11-5 team with Matt Cassel in 2008.
He got 11 wins out of the Browns in '94. They haven't won that many games since.
Nonsense.
He was 36-44 with the Browns. Macadoo had a good record one season with the Giants, does it really mean anything?
I would say that Bill B. had something to do with Superbowl 25 as well. He's done plenty without Brady.
Quote:
In comment 14164889 mattyblue said:
Quote:
In comment 14164883 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
The difference between Brady and Rodgers is that Mike McCarthy is not even in the same universe as Bill Belichick.
Thats just your opinion. Belicheck has done nothing without Brady, and I doubt we will ever see what happens if they parted.
He's done nothing without Brady?
He coached an 11-5 team with Matt Cassel in 2008.
He got 11 wins out of the Browns in '94. They haven't won that many games since.
Nonsense.
He was 36-44 with the Browns. Macadoo had a good record one season with the Giants, does it really mean anything?
Well, considering that the Browns have only played in one playoff game since Bill was there... and he left over 20 years ago... yeah, I think it means a little something.
Belichick is a tremendous coach. A great QB doesn't carry a team to the successes the Pats have had over the last 15+ years on their own.
Just doesn't happen.
The Pats haven't won less than 10 games in 15 years. You think that's all Brady?
Brady being Goat? Ok. At worst I have him #2 so I dont know what the hell youre talking about.
If my wording was unclear I am sorry. I find trying to debate who the GOAT is between Rodgers and Brady laughable.
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Win 5 Superbowls
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Get to 8 Superbowls
I'm not talking about team accomplishments that involve the greatest coach of all time.
I'm talking about as a QB. Skill sets. What makes Brady better than Rodgers as a player?
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Win 5 Super Bowls and go to 8 instead of 1.
The gap between the two as far as super bowls and trips go is so wide that its hard for me to argue Rodgers being a better QB than Brady.
More talented, sure. But not better to me.
I think LeBron is by far the most talented player in basketball history, but I dont think he's actually better than Jordan.
Most talented does not make you the GOAT. Especially when you only have 1 super bowl trip.
Right or wrong, its the one position in football that is going to be judged on Super Bowl championships. Especially in todays era where the QB has a bigger impacting on winning and losing than it ever has.
Having the most physical skills does not make you the GOAT. Rodgers is the most talented QB i've ever seen, no doubt. Just not the best.
Quote:
Let's frame it this way...
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Win 5 Super Bowls and go to 8 instead of 1.
The gap between the two as far as super bowls and trips go is so wide that its hard for me to argue Rodgers being a better QB than Brady.
More talented, sure. But not better to me.
I think LeBron is by far the most talented player in basketball history, but I dont think he's actually better than Jordan.
Most talented does not make you the GOAT. Especially when you only have 1 super bowl trip.
Right or wrong, its the one position in football that is going to be judged on Super Bowl championships. Especially in todays era where the QB has a bigger impacting on winning and losing than it ever has.
Having the most physical skills does not make you the GOAT. Rodgers is the most talented QB i've ever seen, no doubt. Just not the best.
Dan Marino should have taught you at a young age that this argument is complete bullshit.
I'm not talking about team accomplishments that involve the greatest coach of all time.
I'm talking about as a QB. Skill sets. What makes Brady better than Rodgers as a player?
Skill sets does not make you the better player. Just means you're more talented. I dont think anyone will ever argue that Rodgers isnt more talented than Brady. I dont think anyone would argue that LeBron isnt more talented than Jordan.
I'm not talking about team accomplishments that involve the greatest coach of all time.
I'm talking about as a QB. Skill sets. What makes Brady better than Rodgers as a player?
Because he won. Its that simple. You can have all the talent in the world but if you cannot win it, or you throw a badly timed interception to the NY Giants in the NFC championship game, it doesnt matter.
Quote:
Let's frame it this way...
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Win 5 Superbowls
Well, I guess Terry Bradshaw is on your shortlist then huh? He won a few Super Bowls too. Is he a better QB than Rodgers?
Quote:
In comment 14164918 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
Let's frame it this way...
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Win 5 Super Bowls and go to 8 instead of 1.
The gap between the two as far as super bowls and trips go is so wide that its hard for me to argue Rodgers being a better QB than Brady.
More talented, sure. But not better to me.
I think LeBron is by far the most talented player in basketball history, but I dont think he's actually better than Jordan.
Most talented does not make you the GOAT. Especially when you only have 1 super bowl trip.
Right or wrong, its the one position in football that is going to be judged on Super Bowl championships. Especially in todays era where the QB has a bigger impacting on winning and losing than it ever has.
Having the most physical skills does not make you the GOAT. Rodgers is the most talented QB i've ever seen, no doubt. Just not the best.
Dan Marino should have taught you at a young age that this argument is complete bullshit.
It's not complete horse shit. Definitely not in todays game. Marino not winning a Super Bowl is exactly why he's not in the discussion for greatest of all time. Hall of fame quarterback, but if you want to be in the GOAT discussion sorry you have to win and win at least a few.
Quote:
In comment 14164918 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
Let's frame it this way...
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Win 5 Superbowls
Well, I guess Terry Bradshaw is on your shortlist then huh? He won a few Super Bowls too. Is he a better QB than Rodgers?
Its well before my time, and I wouldnt comment on it.
Completely different game today, too.
Brady is just a remarkable football player even today at his age, it's insane what he's doing.
Bradshaw played on teams with all time defenses. Brady has never had a defense like that at any point. Hell he's been to super bowls with all time bad level defenses.
Exactly what Brady has done isnt just generational, its become multi-generational.
Does anyone honestly think the Patriots would be any less successful with Rodgers instead of Brady?
It should be about the players. Not team accomplishments.
Jim Brown won what... 1 Super Bowl? I guess Franco Harris was better.
There's no logic there. It's a dumb argument.
All good, man - we're just BSing about football and the Giants suck. I don't take any of it personally.
2016 - 1st
2014 - 8th
2004 - 2nd
2003 - 1st
2001 - 6th
All top 10 defenses. Two of them the best in the NFL.
Does anyone honestly think the Patriots would be any less successful with Rodgers instead of Brady?
It should be about the players. Not team accomplishments.
Jim Brown won what... 1 Super Bowl? I guess Franco Harris was better.
There's no logic there. It's a dumb argument.
Yes if it was 1 maybe 2 SBs I would understand your argument. Its not Dumbe that Brady has been to 8 and won 5! He won the NFL MVP at 40!! Who has been his best receiver Deion Branch? He makes others great.
Quote:
For the record, I am not trying to be snarky or snide to you. If it comes across that way I apologize. Its just a debate.
All good, man - we're just BSing about football and the Giants suck. I don't take any of it personally.
Cool
Does anyone honestly think the Patriots would be any less successful with Rodgers instead of Brady?
It should be about the players. Not team accomplishments.
Jim Brown won what... 1 Super Bowl? I guess Franco Harris was better.
There's no logic there. It's a dumb argument.
Yes, I do think the Patriots would be less successful with Rodgers than Brady. If you put Rodgers on the Patriots starting when Brady was drafted, I dont think they would have played in 8 super bowls over what, 17 years?
Brady's also been much more durable than Rodgers. Part of being the GOAT is durability too. Can't help your team if you're hurt.
No matter how talented a player is, it's hard envisioning any other QB taking the Patriots to 8 Super Bowls. And let's not pretend Brady has been playing with insane talent around him on offense. Nate Solder may have been the Patriots best lineman for a few years. Think about that for a second. Gronk is terrific but he's made a lot of shit shine at WR over the years.
I dont believe any QB in the history of the sport would have taken these patriots teams to 8 super bowls. That number is truly insane and thinking anyone, even Rodgers, could replicate that is insane to me, especially when Rodgers has only played in 1 in his career. So he's going to go from the Packers to the Patriots and that automatically means he'd go to 7 more super bowls?
2016 - 1st
2014 - 8th
2004 - 2nd
2003 - 1st
2001 - 6th
All top 10 defenses. Two of them the best in the NFL.
The 2011 Patriots defense was remarkably bad defending the pass and he had that team in the Super Bowl. They were so bad in the secondary that they had Julian Edelman playing defensive back in the playoffs.
Look at Brady's defenses in the years he won. Twice he had the best scoring defense in football.
Rodgers has NEVER had that.
The best he had was the 2nd ranked scoring defense. And guess what happened that year? He won the SB.
Brady has played for teams that were better coached and more talented. I don't know how anyone could debate that. Ted Thompson really was not a great GM - he just hit the jackpot on the QB and Rodgers has been covering up holes for years.
Look what happened to the Packers without him last year.
Contrast that with the Pats winning 14 times in 20 tries without Brady.
That doesn't matter?
Quote:
Here's the Pats defensive ranks as far as points allowed in the years they won the SB with Brady...
2016 - 1st
2014 - 8th
2004 - 2nd
2003 - 1st
2001 - 6th
All top 10 defenses. Two of them the best in the NFL.
The 2011 Patriots defense was remarkably bad defending the pass and he had that team in the Super Bowl. They were so bad in the secondary that they had Julian Edelman playing defensive back in the playoffs.
And they lost... to us. So, since it's all about winning and losing, Tom Brady can't be credited for that season.
However, full package - Rodgers can't touch Brady. And it's not close.
Rodgers may be able to close the distance once Brady retires....
8 Super Bowl appearances on top of the personal accomplishments (stats, MVP's, etc) are what makes him the GOAT imo.
I think those arguing for Rodgers are really just saying he's the most talented quarterback ever, which I would agree with.
There are a lot of external factors, but in todays NFL I just dont think you can argue for another QB as the GOAT who has only been to 1 superbowl
Brady has missed... 15?
They're pretty close.
I don't even think Foles and Dilfer makes an argument versus a guy who won a single SB.
Neither of those guys QB'd their teams the entire season.
Coming in and winning at the end - while admirable - is not the same taking your team from start to finish.
Quote:
In comment 14164951 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
Here's the Pats defensive ranks as far as points allowed in the years they won the SB with Brady...
2016 - 1st
2014 - 8th
2004 - 2nd
2003 - 1st
2001 - 6th
All top 10 defenses. Two of them the best in the NFL.
The 2011 Patriots defense was remarkably bad defending the pass and he had that team in the Super Bowl. They were so bad in the secondary that they had Julian Edelman playing defensive back in the playoffs.
And they lost... to us. So, since it's all about winning and losing, Tom Brady can't be credited for that season.
It's not all about winning and losing. I penalize Rodgers a lot more for only being to 1 Super Bowl than only winning 1.
Brady has the entire package to back up being the GOAT. It's not just super bowl appearances, the numbers are there too. MVP's, stats, etc. It's all there. He doesn't have the skill set that Rodgers does, but the actual results have been a good deal better and im not sure how thats even debatable at this point
Favre only won 1 SB. Marino won 0.
And those were two of the best QB's I've ever watched in my entire life.
Brady has been remarkable. I just think it's crazy to discount players based on Super Bowls.
2014 - 8th
2004 - 2nd
2003 - 1st
2001 - 6th
Hard to consider these type of outcome impacting facts...unless your an overweight orange haired melon...
Brady has missed... 15?
They're pretty close.
Brady has basically had only one season impacted at all by injuries in his career.
Rodgers seems to every couple years have something that slows him down. Collar bones, knee this year. If Rodgers doesn't bang up his knee week 1 I doubt they are sitting at 3-3-1
Favre only won 1 SB. Marino won 0.
And those were two of the best QB's I've ever watched in my entire life.
Brady has been remarkable. I just think it's crazy to discount players based on Super Bowls.
Arc I dont discount them at all. I just think you have Brady at number 1 and then you have a whole bunch of debatable guys at number 2, and I dont think its close between them. Rodgers is a great QB, but Brady is the best ever and I cant find any reason to say otherwise.
Favre only won 1 SB. Marino won 0.
And those were two of the best QB's I've ever watched in my entire life.
Brady has been remarkable. I just think it's crazy to discount players based on Super Bowls.
We're talking about the greatest QB of all time. It's not like Rodgers blows Brady away in the stats department. Considering that the numbers and stats are pretty similar, why would you use anything except for Super Bowls to separate the two.
Instead of using Super Bowls, you're using "skill set" to separate the two players. Which one seems more silly to you? Super Bowls or skill set when determining the greatest of all time whose numbers are comparable except in the most important one?
We need a LOT of things.
I fricking hate the Patriots and think Brady is a douche but I still dont think theres any legit argument for him not being the GOAT
Quote:
I mean, I guess people just have different definitions of the greats.
Favre only won 1 SB. Marino won 0.
And those were two of the best QB's I've ever watched in my entire life.
Brady has been remarkable. I just think it's crazy to discount players based on Super Bowls.
We're talking about the greatest QB of all time. It's not like Rodgers blows Brady away in the stats department. Considering that the numbers and stats are pretty similar, why would you use anything except for Super Bowls to separate the two.
Instead of using Super Bowls, you're using "skill set" to separate the two players. Which one seems more silly to you? Super Bowls or skill set when determining the greatest of all time whose numbers are comparable except in the most important one?
Brady also has a .780 winning percentage. Thats insane.
He was always a strong runner. Interesting move by the coach here.
I fricking hate the Patriots and think Brady is a douche but I still dont think theres any legit argument for him not being the GOAT
I agree with every word and you are a great deal more eloquent than me Mook.
Do you see better talent with another player? Some (me included) see it with Rodgers).
About the winning? they said the same BS about Montana.
Winning in football is about a lot of things. Yes. QB is a huge part. But that is not the end of the "best" argument.
Quote:
I mean, I guess people just have different definitions of the greats.
Favre only won 1 SB. Marino won 0.
And those were two of the best QB's I've ever watched in my entire life.
Brady has been remarkable. I just think it's crazy to discount players based on Super Bowls.
We're talking about the greatest QB of all time. It's not like Rodgers blows Brady away in the stats department. Considering that the numbers and stats are pretty similar, why would you use anything except for Super Bowls to separate the two.
Instead of using Super Bowls, you're using "skill set" to separate the two players. Which one seems more silly to you? Super Bowls or skill set when determining the greatest of all time whose numbers are comparable except in the most important one?
Rodgers isn't some workout warrior QB - now you're talking about him like he's Jeff George.
Drew Brees has won once. ONCE! He's one of the best players to ever play football. He's a lock for the HoF.
One SB. That's the only one he's ever played in.
Teams don't do what the Pats have done with an elite QB alone. They just don't.
Belichick has a massive role in this.
Brady has never done that.
But the numbers even forgetting Super Bowls and overall W-L are pretty similar.
So at that point why would you put more weight on skill set than you would Super Bowls?
If we're talking about actual skill set and talent alone, Brady probably isnt even in the top 10 of all time.
I think using talent as the main reason why he's the GOAT is silly.
He's clearly legendary. But it's not egregious to think of Rodgers being more dangerous or skilled.
No one has said that or even come close to saying that here.
This is a debate about being the GOAT. The only "edge" of any sort that Rodgers has is his skill set.
No one is saying Rodgers isnt a lock hall of famer or an amazing QB. We're just saying he's not the GOAT and the guy who has everything numbers wise and record wise is.
What besides being more talented makes Rodgers the goat?
Rodgers has won 2 league MVP's. Brady 3. I know that brady has played a lot longer, they'll probably wind up with the same amount of league MVP's when all is said and done, I can see Rodgers winning another at some point, probably not two though.
Honestly, is there anything you can point to outside of being more talented which no one will even argue on here. Rodgers is zero question more talented. But everything else is pretty even. Except Super Bowls where it isnt even remotely close.
If a guy is a winner I don't care about his skill set. The object is to win, and Brady has done more of that than anyone.
There is no room of QB greats that Brady doesn't have the key to.
Look at Brady's defenses in the years he won. Twice he had the best scoring defense in football.
Rodgers has NEVER had that.
The best he had was the 2nd ranked scoring defense. And guess what happened that year? He won the SB.
Brady has played for teams that were better coached and more talented. I don't know how anyone could debate that. Ted Thompson really was not a great GM - he just hit the jackpot on the QB and Rodgers has been covering up holes for years.
Look what happened to the Packers without him last year.
Contrast that with the Pats winning 14 times in 20 tries without Brady.
That doesn't matter?
This should have ended the thread. Absolute home run of a post.
You are putting more of the weight into results and winning - I am isolating the players and comparing them individually.
Neither is necessarily right or wrong.
But I don't think it's debatable that Brady has had a far better coach. He's also had better defenses. That stuff matters.
When I watch Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady, I just don't see Brady do anything that Rodgers can't.
From a talent standpoint, Rodgers is the better player - Brady has had far more success. But it's the NFL... there are so many other factors that impact overall wins and losses.
Anyway... this argument is detracting from a pretty good football game. It is what it is.
Zero issue with sending a rush there. It's less risky at 4th and 22 than it is at 4th and 4, or 4th and 6.
They got fucked. That was only a 5 yard penalty
Here's something Brady has been able to do that Rodgers has not: stay consistently healthy. That matters.
It's not about stats. Blake Bortles threw for like 4500 yards and 35 TDs a few years ago.
My opinion is borne out of watching both guys all these years.
I personally think Rodgers has carried a lot of crappy teams, he has had a far worse coach, and his escapability/ability to throw darts on the run is something Brady cannot physically do.
There is literally nothing Tom Brady does as a QB that I don't think Rodgers is capable of. He's more talented.
Winning is a product of many other factors. The Giants have absolutely no shot at winning our last SB unless the defense stepped up. They did. Eli made brilliant plays when he needed to. But if the defense hadn't come together and gotten healthy at that point, there's no chance we win that year.
Like I've said many times - look at what the Packers turned into without Rodgers and look at what the Pats turned into without Brady. GB went like 3-8 without Rodgers. NE had no problem winning games without Brady. They won the majority of them.
What I do know is I would sure as hell love to have a 22 year old version of any one of them drafted next April
Here's something Brady has been able to do that Rodgers has not: stay consistently healthy. That matters.
Terps, I feel like this is the Elway-Montana debate just being rehashed 30 years later.
Montana had the structure, great coaching (and overall staff), and the W's that followed.
Elway had incredible talent and dragged a bunch of bums to the Super Bowl with questionable coaching, and yet when they lost, he got all the blame. But from pure talent, he and Rodgers may be the greatest I've ever seen.
ever
"I guess Jeff George is one of the best ever"
Maybe you have a point if anybody here was saying Rodgers is all about the arm. That isn't it. And nobody is saying it.
Its a horse shit point. Try again.
QBs have more influence than any other single player on the field, but not more influence than the rest of the players combined.
A QB is only on the field for about 40-45% of plays. That means that the majority of the plays in the game, the QB has absolutely zero impact. And when he's on the field, his play is still dependent on the work of 10 other teammates.
If Brady's offensive line sucked and couldn't run block or pass protect, he would have 0 Super Bowl rings.
Quote:
if we're comparing them individually and taking the "skill set" out of the equation, what numbers or stats can you actually point to and say "Rodgers has a clear advantage here". Genuinely curious.
It's not about stats. Blake Bortles threw for like 4500 yards and 35 TDs a few years ago.
My opinion is borne out of watching both guys all these years.
I personally think Rodgers has carried a lot of crappy teams, he has had a far worse coach, and his escapability/ability to throw darts on the run is something Brady cannot physically do.
There is literally nothing Tom Brady does as a QB that I don't think Rodgers is capable of. He's more talented.
Winning is a product of many other factors. The Giants have absolutely no shot at winning our last SB unless the defense stepped up. They did. Eli made brilliant plays when he needed to. But if the defense hadn't come together and gotten healthy at that point, there's no chance we win that year.
Like I've said many times - look at what the Packers turned into without Rodgers and look at what the Pats turned into without Brady. GB went like 3-8 without Rodgers. NE had no problem winning games without Brady. They won the majority of them.
Those Superbowls all went through Bradys arm though. He may have had some good defenses but the defenses rankings can easily get inflated by Brady driving and scoring at will against other teams. If you are suddenly down 20 in the blink of an eye, defenses know you are gonna have to throw to stay in the game and adjust accordingly.
Ill give you that possibly Belicheck is a genius, but again its just a question that will never have an answer.
It's not something that just happens to them out of luck. They take the chances because they're bold and are in a position of strength, and confident in their process and culture.
References:
Mike McCarthy, Head Coach (2006-present)
I think Brees is a better passer. Brady a better competitor.
Quote:
Has too many blemishes on his resume to be considered better than Brady. Same with Brees.
I think Brees is a better passer. Brady a better competitor.
Brees splits outside of a dome are pretty bad. Theres nothing glaring like that on Bradys resume.
Brady has had a remarkable career. Won SBs with no names and cast offs early in his career. Got the better of Peyton when everyone thought Peyton was the lock GOAT. Insane amount of SB appearances and wins in an era thats damn near impossible to build a dynasty. Plenty of records. Plenty of comeback wins. Flawless career outside of the few SB losses.
Brees splits outside of a dome are pretty bad. Theres nothing glaring like that on Bradys resume.
Brady has had a remarkable career. Won SBs with no names and cast offs early in his career. Got the better of Peyton when everyone thought Peyton was the lock GOAT. Insane amount of SB appearances and wins in an era thats damn near impossible to build a dynasty. Plenty of records. Plenty of comeback wins. Flawless career outside of the few SB losses.
Really good point about Brees. He's a very good QB, but playing in a dome has distorted his production. Rating is 10 points less and his TD/INT ratio is worse (2.61 (H) vs 1.79 (R)).
At least Favre went to two Super Bowls and his team were always amongst the best in the NFC.
This Packers team aint sniffing a wild card this season
No Gronk, No Michel. No problem.
His RB was James White, Julian Edelman and castaway Josh Gordon his WR's.
He was missing starting OL last week.
but, it's all Belichick and Scar. Sure it is.
I can't stand him and think he's a major douche (his persona at least - I do admire his charitable work)
I hate to say it, but Davante Adams, Randall Cobb, Jimmy Graham, Aaron Jones is probably better skill guys than the Patriots have and the Pack OL has more pro-bowlers than the Patriots.
All 3 of them?
Quote:
Yeah Rodgers has more physical talent than Brady, but physical ability isn't the end all be all.
Here's something Brady has been able to do that Rodgers has not: stay consistently healthy. That matters.
Terps, I feel like this is the Elway-Montana debate just being rehashed 30 years later.
Montana had the structure, great coaching (and overall staff), and the W's that followed.
Elway had incredible talent and dragged a bunch of bums to the Super Bowl with questionable coaching, and yet when they lost, he got all the blame. But from pure talent, he and Rodgers may be the greatest I've ever seen.
We must subscribe to the same newsletter. I've thought for a while now that Rodgers is the evolutionary Elway. Rodgers a little more brittle than Elway and a lesser athlete, but a more pure and electric passer.
Elway has always been the guy I wanted at QB if you had one game to play anytime, anywhere, but Rodgers may have taken that mantle.
From top to bottom that organization is run like a machine. They suffer injuries, the adapt. They don't suffer injuries, they evolve. It's no shock Soldier is nothing like the player in NY he was in NE. BB knows when it is time to let guys go and he maximizes everything he gets out of his players.
When I watch the Pats play I don't see Brady greatness, like everyone else. I see 40 guys playing with that greatness. Everyone talks about Brady not having great WRs and they don't understand how things work in NE. They don't throw big $ or high draft picks on prototype tall fast "#1" wideouts. Instead they target guys who are tough, lightning quick, sure handed, and great route runners, and they get them a hell of a lot cheaper.
We rip Eli for throwing short of the sticks on 3rd downs --have you watched the Pats??? That's all the do is throw short, but they spread it out to 4-5 guys and defenses have no idea where it's going and anyone of them will make the tough catch and slip a tackle. The timing is perfect.
Game on the line, I watch Patriots player after player make the play when it's needed. Even backup guys and on both sides of the ball. Brady gets all the credit, but they all make the plays. How many times has Eli thrown a catchable ball in critical situation and is dropped? In the Patriots uniform, their receivers will make the catch, or defender makes the tackle, or whatever it is they need. They do the fundamental things better than everyone else and BB knows that guys who do the fundamentals, are tough and smart get passed up in draft for guys who are bigger, taller, faster, etc. and he cashes in his picks to load up on the prior. This is the big advantage for having the head coach also be the guy making decisions on personnel.
From top to bottom that organization is run like a machine. They suffer injuries, the adapt. They don't suffer injuries, they evolve. It's no shock Soldier is nothing like the player in NY he was in NE. BB knows when it is time to let guys go and he maximizes everything he gets out of his players.
When I watch the Pats play I don't see Brady greatness, like everyone else. I see 40 guys playing with that greatness. Everyone talks about Brady not having great WRs and they don't understand how things work in NE. They don't throw big $ or high draft picks on prototype tall fast "#1" wideouts. Instead they target guys who are tough, lightning quick, sure handed, and great route runners, and they get them a hell of a lot cheaper.
We rip Eli for throwing short of the sticks on 3rd downs --have you watched the Pats??? That's all the do is throw short, but they spread it out to 4-5 guys and defenses have no idea where it's going and anyone of them will make the tough catch and slip a tackle. The timing is perfect.
Game on the line, I watch Patriots player after player make the play when it's needed. Even backup guys and on both sides of the ball. Brady gets all the credit, but they all make the plays. How many times has Eli thrown a catchable ball in critical situation and is dropped? In the Patriots uniform, their receivers will make the catch, or defender makes the tackle, or whatever it is they need. They do the fundamental things better than everyone else and BB knows that guys who do the fundamentals, are tough and smart get passed up in draft for guys who are bigger, taller, faster, etc. and he cashes in his picks to load up on the prior. This is the big advantage for having the head coach also be the guy making decisions on personnel.
Nothing original here, but what you need to ask yourself is would this "system" work without Brady?
He's the one constant making that offense run and everyone wants to give Belichick more credit because he's the GOAT as a HC, but his defenses have left something to be desired the past 4 or 5 seasons and it's the offense that has carried the team.
Sure, some people point to 2008 when Matt Cassel replaced Brady and the Patriots went 11 - 5. What people don't mention because it doesn't fit their narrative is that a) the Patriots had historically the 2nd easiest schedule in NFL 16-game season history and b) their record was 5 games worse than the prior season. That's significant.
IMV it's another Brady vs Peyton debate. That was very lopsided early on, everyone felt Peyton was the better QB, now almost no one with a valuable opinion feels that way.
I believe both Belichick and Brady are needed to have the success they've had. I also believe 100% Brady could have success elsewhere, probably the same 1 SB success Rodgers or Brees have had if a 2nd SB. And I don't know if Belichick wins 5 SB's with Rodgers or Brees and the same supporting cast. Or any other QB.
As I said, everyone makes the plays the Pats need to win, not just Brady. You say the defense is bad, but even when the defense isn't a strength statistically, they still make the plays they need. Their wins and losses are not one guy carrying them. Special teams, defensive secondary, running backs, receivers, Oline, whoever. In those key situations that decide football games, the men in Pats uniforms make the plays. Period.
That's what I see.
As I said, everyone makes the plays the Pats need to win, not just Brady. You say the defense is bad, but even when the defense isn't a strength statistically, they still make the plays they need. Their wins and losses are not one guy carrying them. Special teams, defensive secondary, running backs, receivers, Oline, whoever. In those key situations that decide football games, the men in Pats uniforms make the plays. Period.
That's what I see.
Did you watch the Super Bowl last year? That painful, awful Super Bowl?
the Patriots D got shredded. Brady shredded the Eagles D.
In the end there was no play by the Patriots D.
Quote:
He's an all time great. But he doesn't win all those rings in any other uniform.
As I said, everyone makes the plays the Pats need to win, not just Brady. You say the defense is bad, but even when the defense isn't a strength statistically, they still make the plays they need. Their wins and losses are not one guy carrying them. Special teams, defensive secondary, running backs, receivers, Oline, whoever. In those key situations that decide football games, the men in Pats uniforms make the plays. Period.
That's what I see.
Did you watch the Super Bowl last year? That painful, awful Super Bowl?
the Patriots D got shredded. Brady shredded the Eagles D.
In the end there was no play by the Patriots D.
My answer is simple..Brady. This conversation sounds a lot like Brady vs Peyton from 5-10 years ago. That's why my answer is Brady. The guy has been doing it for a really long time. It's like in baseball, there were plenty of closers that had better seasons than Mo, but when you look back, was Eric Gagne better than Mo? No because Mo did it for so long. Brady's longevity and success is second to none and that means something. I would agree that Rodgers is more physically gifted, but as of now, the answer is easily Brady.
You also can't discredit the winning, that's kinda important. To suggest that its all BB and then reference one season in which they won a bunch of regular season games(how'd that postseason go?) with a backup is just silly. It's like choosing Romo over Eli. Romo is more physically gifted, but Eli got it done when it mattered most.
No hes not. Hes also blown a few SB shots with below expectation performances in road playoff games.
Quote:
In comment 14165208 UberAlias said:
Quote:
He's an all time great. But he doesn't win all those rings in any other uniform.
As I said, everyone makes the plays the Pats need to win, not just Brady. You say the defense is bad, but even when the defense isn't a strength statistically, they still make the plays they need. Their wins and losses are not one guy carrying them. Special teams, defensive secondary, running backs, receivers, Oline, whoever. In those key situations that decide football games, the men in Pats uniforms make the plays. Period.
That's what I see.
Did you watch the Super Bowl last year? That painful, awful Super Bowl?
the Patriots D got shredded. Brady shredded the Eagles D.
In the end there was no play by the Patriots D.
You are talking about one game, LOL. A game they lost I'm not sure how this contradicts my point. So Brady doesn't win it all on his own? Gee...
That one game was obviously one example because you stated you always see someone on defense stepping up to make a play. It also just happened to be the biggest game and the reason you play all the others. LOL.
That's what I've been told over and over and over again here on this forum.
Now we're saying Rodgers can't win because he never had the best scoring defense? I didn't read the whole thread, but is that what is being said?
Not for nothing, but in 2011 we went in to Green Bay, who was 15-1 and Rodgers was the MVP, and beat them at home in the playoffs.
Our scoring defense was ranked 25th.
And as argued that when the Packers did have a great defense they won the Superbowl.... They were also a Desean Jackson miracle punt return against the Giants from not making the playoffs at all. Now I'm not about "if's and but's", but it's not like they were some dominate sure thing to win the Superbowl because all the sudden their defense was good and that was the tipping point.
I'm not arguing that Rodgers isn't great, but c'mon. That argument goes against everything claimed here for years.
Brady's career stands alone, second to no one.
The Patriots have done it in so many ways over the years. Sometimes the defense has been the strength, many times it has been the offense. And you can't just look at generic stats like yardage ranking. That is the whole point --that's how everyone else looks at things, but not how the Patriots operate. It's exactly why everyone concludes the Pats don't have good wide receivers because they don't win yardage trophies and make probowls. But if you watch how the Pats win games, their wide receivers are fatnastic at doign the things BB needs them to do. Hanging on to that critical 3rd down catch over the middle as a linebacker tried to decapitate you won't win anyone's fantasy league for them, but that's exactly how the Patriots win football games.
Well, the 2011 Packers defense also beat the New York Giants in New York in the regular season too.
Look, it's been said around here ad nausium: A Great Franchise QB elevates everybody around him REGARDLESS of anything else.
If you're going to compare Rodgers to Brady you gotta stand by that.
Quote:
Is excellent. Hes lower than in a Done but theyre also all away games. But his numbers are HOF level playing outside. Same with cold weather.
No hes not. Hes also blown a few SB shots with below expectation performances in road playoff games.
Which one's were they supposed to win that he blew?
The Saints playoff L's after winning their Super Bowl:
2010 at Seattle (defense gives up 41)
2011 at San Francisco (Brees drives for the game leading TD with 1:37 left, but the defense allows Alex Smith to drive for the W in the last seconds to face the Giants in the NFC Title Game)
NOTE - I contend to this day if the Saints hold on to win, they go back to the Super Bowl because they would have beaten the Giants the next week.
2013 at Seattle - Seattle great defense at home shuts them down similar to what happened in a previous game weeks earlier. Not unexpected.
2017 at Minnesota - Game was won until the final play when the defender brain cramped and Diggs ran for the walkoff TD.
Which one of these should Brees have carried them to victory? 2 of the 4 games they had the lead with 20 SECONDS REMAINING only to take the L.
Rodgers carries guys on his back. He makes guys like Cobb, Nelson and the rest. He makes the OL. He elevates the okay of his offensive unit as good as anybody ever.
Even this year, while injured, and a lot of his offensive guys hurt he has a 15 to 1 TD to INT rate.
He isnt carrying this team and elevating guys?
Rodgers carries guys on his back. He makes guys like Cobb, Nelson and the rest. He makes the OL. He elevates the okay of his offensive unit as good as anybody ever.
Even this year, while injured, and a lot of his offensive guys hurt he has a 15 to 1 TD to INT rate.
He isnt carrying this team and elevating guys?
This is a comparison of Rodgers to Brady, is it not?
Does Brady not do all of those things?
There is no comparison.
Last night, I saw two great QBs make some great throws, miss some throws, and I saw two QBs have protection that would have been a wet dream for Eli over the last few years. It seemed like the only time they were under pressure was when the defenses blitzed, leaving favorable match-ups for the receivers.
I saw two QBs hand the ball off 47 combined times, and only one one time did the run go for negative yards (and it was for -1 yard). Meanwhile over 14% of Barkley's runs go for negative yards.
---------------------------
I thought Rodgers was better last night. The difference in the game was Aaron Jones fumbling, the roughing the kicker, and the Patriots working more cleverly with Patterson as a RB and the flea-flicker-- all things that are reflective more of Belichick getting his guys to "do their jobs" better than McCarthy got his guys to do so.
NYG defense did nothing of shutting down Brady in 2011. This is just a false statement to carry on a narrative.
Its simply not true. He carries guys and hes proving it again this year.
The no comparisoncomment is off too. Plenty of informed people, coaches, former, and current players say hes the best theyve seen.
Rodgers is in he conversation for GOAT.
Its easy to make the case for Brady but you dont do it by making shit up about Rodgers.
Why dont you say NO's defense carried them to a title like the 2011 Giants did?
But I saw Montana in his prime, when QBs could get hit (see the hits he took against Jim Burt and Leonard Marshall - unlike this era which is embarrassingly soft), and he was astonishingly great. To this day, despite not having the huge arm, he was the best long ball thrower I have ever seen. The guy always seemed to hit Rice, Taylor, Clark, Solomon, etc in stride. He is why that team was always so great in YAC.
Brady is a great one trick pony - in the pocket. Montana was great in and out of the pocket.
Rodgers is Montana with a better arm and even more athleticism. I have no problem assuming that if he played in New England he'd have a few more rings.
Brady is second to none. C'mon now:
-5 Super Bowl champion (XXXVI, XXXVIII, XXXIX, XLIX, LI)
-4 Super Bowl MVP (XXXVI, XXXVIII, XLIX, LI)
-3 NFL Most Valuable Player (2007, 2010, 2017)
-13 Pro Bowl (2001, 2004, 2005, 2007, 20092017)
-3 First-team All-Pro (2007, 2010, 2017)
-2 Second-team All-Pro (2005, 2016)
-2 NFL Offensive Player of the Year (2007, 2010)
-3 NFL passing yards leader (2005, 2007, 2017)
-4 NFL passing touchdowns leader (2002, 2007, 2010, 2015)
-2 NFL passer rating leader (2007, 2010)
Brady is second to none. C'mon now:
-5 Super Bowl champion (XXXVI, XXXVIII, XXXIX, XLIX, LI)
-4 Super Bowl MVP (XXXVI, XXXVIII, XLIX, LI)
-3 NFL Most Valuable Player (2007, 2010, 2017)
-13 Pro Bowl (2001, 2004, 2005, 2007, 20092017)
-3 First-team All-Pro (2007, 2010, 2017)
-2 Second-team All-Pro (2005, 2016)
-2 NFL Offensive Player of the Year (2007, 2010)
-3 NFL passing yards leader (2005, 2007, 2017)
-4 NFL passing touchdowns leader (2002, 2007, 2010, 2015)
-2 NFL passer rating leader (2007, 2010)
Don't be ridiculous, it's Belichick Any decent QB in that offense would duplicate those stats and accolades.
Giants D started by scoring and held them 2 TDS below their season average. Brady couldnt throw the ball down the field. He threw it 40+ times and avg under 7 YPA.
NYG defense did nothing of shutting down Brady in 2011. This is just a false statement to carry on a narrative.
This has got to be sarcasm, right? An Arc like attempt at trolling?
Quote:
In comment 14165117 KWALL2 said:
Quote:
Is excellent. Hes lower than in a Done but theyre also all away games. But his numbers are HOF level playing outside. Same with cold weather.
No hes not. Hes also blown a few SB shots with below expectation performances in road playoff games.
Which one's were they supposed to win that he blew?
The Saints playoff L's after winning their Super Bowl:
2010 at Seattle (defense gives up 41)
2011 at San Francisco (Brees drives for the game leading TD with 1:37 left, but the defense allows Alex Smith to drive for the W in the last seconds to face the Giants in the NFC Title Game)
NOTE - I contend to this day if the Saints hold on to win, they go back to the Super Bowl because they would have beaten the Giants the next week.
2013 at Seattle - Seattle great defense at home shuts them down similar to what happened in a previous game weeks earlier. Not unexpected.
2017 at Minnesota - Game was won until the final play when the defender brain cramped and Diggs ran for the walkoff TD.
Which one of these should Brees have carried them to victory? 2 of the 4 games they had the lead with 20 SECONDS REMAINING only to take the L.
Brees had 3 turnovers vs Minny last year. Sure the defense blew it, but the fact remains hes a different guy at home vs on the road. If they played that game in NO last year the Saints win by two scores.
Hes a great QB. But when were talking about the greatest, I cant causually dismiss the fact thats hes noticeably different on the road. Hell, even the commentators mentioned it in the Rams game.
Giants D started by scoring and held them 2 TDS below their season average. Brady couldnt throw the ball down the field. He threw it 40+ times and avg under 7 YPA.
Because they didnt have the ball. And when they did, they moved it quite effectively. When your offense holds the ball for the entire game, its hard for the team to score. Pus, are you giving the defense for a blown coverage and missed passed that would have ended the game? Here are the Giants drives by number of plays.....
10
9
8
7
10
9
10
9
8 drives, all lasting at leas 7 plays. 37:00 minutes worth of possessions. You know where NE started their drives? 16 yard line. I am sorry, but the offense won us the SB, much like they did in SB 25 - by keeping the more explosive offense OFF the field.
If you want to give the defense all the credit, your agenda will remain constant. By if Brady hits a WIDE OPEN Welker.... the game is over and we lose.
Quote:
NYG defense did nothing of shutting down Brady in 2011. This is just a false statement to carry on a narrative.
This has got to be sarcasm, right? An Arc like attempt at trolling?
Look at my last post. The information is there that no one wants to read.
I just can't buy that after watching players like LT, Reggie White, Ronnie Lott, Jerry Rice, etc. Players who were using speed, strength, quickness, etc to change the game.
Brady is nowhere in that category of athlete/player. He plays a critical position that, ironically, requires less and less ability and skill to absorb physical contract. And for me, that just isn't football anymore...
I just can't buy that after watching players like LT, Reggie White, Ronnie Lott, Jerry Rice, etc. Players who were using speed, strength, quickness, etc to change the game.
Brady is nowhere in that category of athlete/player. He plays a critical position that, ironically, requires less and less ability and skill to absorb physical contract. And for me, that just isn't football anymore...
But you're discounting the fact that Brady straddles two different eras in the NFL, and won multiple championships in both.
He won his first three Superbowls in an era that was absolutely more violent, as well as a lot harder to play offensive football where the defenders could mug WR's (pre-Polian Peyton rule changing), a strategy that the Patriots themselves utilized to perfection.
The NFL was a lot different in the late 90's, early 2000's.
The NFL was a lot different in the late 90's, early 2000's.
LOL, nearly killed him. I'm with you on this debate, but that's some massive hyperbole.
There was a QB controversy in New England four or five weeks later.
Quote:
It's this talk that he's the greatest football player ever.
I just can't buy that after watching players like LT, Reggie White, Ronnie Lott, Jerry Rice, etc. Players who were using speed, strength, quickness, etc to change the game.
Brady is nowhere in that category of athlete/player. He plays a critical position that, ironically, requires less and less ability and skill to absorb physical contract. And for me, that just isn't football anymore...
But you're discounting the fact that Brady straddles two different eras in the NFL, and won multiple championships in both.
He won his first three Superbowls in an era that was absolutely more violent, as well as a lot harder to play offensive football where the defenders could mug WR's (pre-Polian Peyton rule changing), a strategy that the Patriots themselves utilized to perfection.
Let's be honest - the first SB was more Vinatieri than Brady. The two kicks he made in the snow against the Raiders in the division game were as good as it gets. And the first one courtesy of the tuck rule. And if you remember, Brady didn't play against the Steelers in the AFC Championship game - Bledsoe did. And then Vinatieri made the greatest clutch kick ever in the SB.
But the point of my post was about this narrative of Brady being the GOAT for any position in football. I just can't wrap my head around that on an "athlete" playing a sport who can't run, has no quickness, and isn't a pillar of football strength like a Roethlisberger.
They had the ball 9 times. Scored on only 3. Our defense got points on one possession. Had an INT on another. And NE failed to come close to their season average of 32+ points/game.
They could not run the ball.
Brady dropped back 45 times for a net of 266 yards passing.
Quote:
Are we watching the same sport?
Giants D started by scoring and held them 2 TDS below their season average. Brady couldnt throw the ball down the field. He threw it 40+ times and avg under 7 YPA.
Because they didnt have the ball. And when they did, they moved it quite effectively. When your offense holds the ball for the entire game, its hard for the team to score. Pus, are you giving the defense for a blown coverage and missed passed that would have ended the game? Here are the Giants drives by number of plays.....
10
9
8
7
10
9
10
9
8 drives, all lasting at leas 7 plays. 37:00 minutes worth of possessions. You know where NE started their drives? 16 yard line. I am sorry, but the offense won us the SB, much like they did in SB 25 - by keeping the more explosive offense OFF the field.
If you want to give the defense all the credit, your agenda will remain constant. By if Brady hits a WIDE OPEN Welker.... the game is over and we lose.
No one is denying the offense didn't play very well (they would have scored more points if not for that stupid phantom holding call on Boothe), but the defense was tremendous.
NE still had the ball 9 times, and only scored on 3 of them. Brady was only sacked twice, but harassed most of the game (not as much as he was harassed/bit in SB 42, of course).
It was a complete effort What I have an issue is with you saying that the defense did "nothing"
At least that's how I read it. And I think it's a valid point.
1st drive - Brady has a mental error and throws it to the wrong place, not realizing what he was doing was wrong. If thats great defense, our standards have dropped dramatically.
2nd drive - 10 plays, 60 yards FG
3rd drive - 3 and out - good defense
4th drive - 14 plays 96 yards TD.
5th drive - 8 plays - 79 yards.
those two drives ended the half started the 2nd half that put us in a whole.
6th drive - 3 and out - great defense
7th drive - 5 plays, 23 yards - where Brady underthrew an open gronk and blackburn made a pick. great play by Chase, but it was a missed opportunity.
8th drive - 11 play drive punt where Brady missed a wide open Welker that would have ended the game. This is not good defense whatsoever. Again, if need to relay on blown coverage missed passes - the standard is low.
9th drive - Pats go 30 yards before the game ended. So we are now counting this as a stop?
Brady really hurt his team this game and it didnt have to do with a pass rush or great defense. He took a bad safety by not throwing it out of bounds. He missed an open Gronk and he missed a wide open Welker. If this constitutes the defense carrying the team on that day - well your agenda continues.
Ill give the proper credit to the offense and special teams controlling the ball and field position.
At least that's how I read it. And I think it's a valid point.
KWALL never has nor will he ever give Eli credit for anything.
Answer? I'm not.
An interesting point since the same defense shut down Brady too.
But how is this about Eli?
Oh because Dep is on the thread and he makes everything about Eli.
But how is this about Eli?
Oh because Dep is on the thread and he makes everything about Eli.
Oh here we go.... lol. KWALL typical go to move.
Actually, you are the first one to bring up Eli.... but again.... carry on.
Quote:
dep's point was that KWALL attributes the Giants runs mainly to the defense, while giving credit to guys like Brees for their runs, even though his defense rose to the occasion as well.
At least that's how I read it. And I think it's a valid point.
KWALL never has nor will he ever give Eli credit for anything.
KWALL may (or may not) have an agenda here, but it's pretty clear your Eli narrative is present as well.
It was a team effort, just leave it at that. Geez...
Rodgers is a great, great, great QB. But the fact he has only 1 SB does not put him in the same category as Brady.
KWALL may (or may not) have an agenda here, but it's pretty clear your Eli narrative is present as well.
It was a team effort, just leave it at that. Geez...
LOL, by saying the offense and STs had more to do with the win than the defense means I have an Eli agenda....
great call. Did I even mention anything about Eli during the game? No... thank you... move along.
Thats more BS. The point was made the 2011 defense stopped Rodgers and that is a knock on Rodgers in a debate of Rodgers vs Brady.
I pointed out the 2011 defense shut down Brady too.
That's bringing up Eli?
Or not giving him credit.
The point was clear. How can you knock Rodgers for his performance against the 2011 defense when Brady didn't do any better vs that same defense?
But this is about Eli in your world.
Thats more BS. The point was made the 2011 defense stopped Rodgers and that is a knock on Rodgers in a debate of Rodgers vs Brady.
I pointed out the 2011 defense shut down Brady too.
That's bringing up Eli?
Or not giving him credit.
The point was clear. How can you knock Rodgers for his performance against the 2011 defense when Brady didn't do any better vs that same defense?
But this is about Eli in your world.
Actually you brought up Eli earlier in the thread for reasons unknownst to man (I quoted it for you in case you have a hard time reading). I certainly did not. And I didnt refer a single statement about Eli in regards to SB 46. I mentioned the offense and STs which consists of more players than just Eli.
But carry on.... you have insistently gone on for years that the defense carried the Giants in the playoffs. Its a false narrative and by saying the Ginats shut down Brady in the SB (which they did not, which I proved by examples ,stats, and game play action). Your agenda is clear and to be honest..... boring.
Quote:
KWALL may (or may not) have an agenda here, but it's pretty clear your Eli narrative is present as well.
It was a team effort, just leave it at that. Geez...
LOL, by saying the offense and STs had more to do with the win than the defense means I have an Eli agenda....
great call. Did I even mention anything about Eli during the game? No... thank you... move along.
Holy crap, dude. Well, let's see...you specifically gave props to the offense.....and the guy who lead the offense was Eli....
How "great" was the offense, anyway? You keep referencing the fact they dominated TOP; they had the ball for 37 minutes, and scored 19 measly points.
All three phases of the team were key contributors to the win. It was a complete team win. Just let it go!
I am proving that the defense didnt shut down the Patriots which has been inferred to many times on this thread. I am in belief that the offense and special teams played a larger point in the win. Outside of tuck and chase making a play... out defnese was really non existent. I am not going to give credit to a unit because the other side had colossal fuck ups.
Sure you did.
and the 6 possessions that did not lead to points...
or the 4 possessions of 5 plays or less...
Defense wasn't there that day.
Sure you did.
Um, I did. Did I make up the plays that were missed by Brady and the Pats? Were my TOP and drive information wrong?
Oh I got it. You just dont understand them. My fault. Ill do a better job... lets slow it down for you here.
With 4:06 left in the game and the Patriots up 2, the Patriots had 2nd down. brady dropped back and Wes Welker ran up the slot with NO ONE guaridng him. He was open by 15 yards. Brady threw a pass a little behind him that Welker couldnt bring in on the adjustment. If caught in stride, it most likely goes for a touchdown. If caught irregardless, its a first down in FG range and the Giants would be forced to burn timeouts with NO guarantee they would get the ball back. A TD ends the game.
See this would be example of a stat line play where the defense gets credit for an incompletion when they did NOTHING on the play that would be called good defense. But according to you, it was plays like this that "shut down" Brady - right? hahahahahahahahahaha
and the 6 possessions that did not lead to points...
or the 4 possessions of 5 plays or less...
Defense wasn't there that day.
still including drives where a hail mary ended the game and a 2 blown passes as good defensive drives? Your standards are weak as usual.
Great point.
9 possessions. 3 scores.
14+ points below the NE average.
Defense scored.
Got an INT.
Held them to 266 passing yards on 45 pass plays.
And back to the points...
Held NE to their lowest point total of the year and 2 TDs below their average.
Great point.
Held NE to their lowest point total of the year and 2 TDs below their average.
Thank the offense and STs for that.
The did not execute the play. It was one play out of 45 pass plays.
Great point.
We lose the SB if it was caught. Great defense though.
The did not execute the play. It was one play out of 45 pass plays.
Brady under throwing Gronk. Thats another play. He was open. But great defense again.
Doing it against one of the best offenses ever makes it exceptional especially when the D gives you points on top of it.
But this is about Eli, right?
But this is about Eli, right?
If he is the whole offense and STs, then I guess. The fact is the offense and Specials carried us that day. Blwon coverages and misfires doesnt equate to good dfense or shutting down a player,.
Lot's of things have to happen for a team to win a championship, including breaks and luck. No single guy carries a team to a championship by himself, period.
Even as I mentioned earlier in this thread, as great as Rodgers is, if the Giants don't collapse against the Eagles in 2010 in a game completely unrelated to him, they don't even make the playoffs that year (no Superbowl).
Quote:
Ground. This will be put too simply considering all of the components at play for a team winning a championship. But to isolate it to you two's discussion; qb play and defense had a lot to do with the giants bringing home another championship. Can't we just rest at that? This argument comes up about three or so times each year with the same dialogue.
Lot's of things have to happen for a team to win a championship, including breaks and luck. No single guy carries a team to a championship by himself, period.
Even as I mentioned earlier in this thread, as great as Rodgers is, if the Giants don't collapse against the Eagles in 2010 in a game completely unrelated to him, they don't even make the playoffs that year (no Superbowl).
Britt excuse my possible ignorance, are you agreeing with me or adding to my post?
It's an opinion and un-answerable premise and there is no information to suggest the outcome should Brady have not been on the Patriots all these years and been instead on a different team with a different QB(s) in New England.
People suggesting one way is a fact come across as major douche bags (no offense and with all due respect)
Quote:
In comment 14165568 crick n NC said:
Quote:
Ground. This will be put too simply considering all of the components at play for a team winning a championship. But to isolate it to you two's discussion; qb play and defense had a lot to do with the giants bringing home another championship. Can't we just rest at that? This argument comes up about three or so times each year with the same dialogue.
Lot's of things have to happen for a team to win a championship, including breaks and luck. No single guy carries a team to a championship by himself, period.
Even as I mentioned earlier in this thread, as great as Rodgers is, if the Giants don't collapse against the Eagles in 2010 in a game completely unrelated to him, they don't even make the playoffs that year (no Superbowl).
Britt excuse my possible ignorance, are you agreeing with me or adding to my post?
Agreeing and adding. Both.
It's an opinion and un-answerable premise and there is no information to suggest the outcome should Brady have not been on the Patriots all these years and been instead on a different team with a different QB(s) in New England.
People suggesting one way is a fact come across as major douche bags (no offense and with all due respect)
We can only go on what actually happened, and Brady's resume is second to none. It speaks for itself.
Guys can only play the hand they're dealt, and nobody knows what it would look like if Rodgers and Brady switched places.
Quote:
Ground. This will be put too simply considering all of the components at play for a team winning a championship. But to isolate it to you two's discussion; qb play and defense had a lot to do with the giants bringing home another championship. Can't we just rest at that? This argument comes up about three or so times each year with the same dialogue.
Lot's of things have to happen for a team to win a championship, including breaks and luck. No single guy carries a team to a championship by himself, period.
Even as I mentioned earlier in this thread, as great as Rodgers is, if the Giants don't collapse against the Eagles in 2010 in a game completely unrelated to him, they don't even make the playoffs that year (no Superbowl).
The Pack beat the Bears in the NFC titke game in '10. Bears I think had their third string Qb, since a Cutler had a boo boo, in at one point and I believe the biggest score of the game was a pick six by the Packer Nose Guard. Rodgers threw two picks. His team helped carry him to the Super Bowl. Good luck finding a game where the rest of the Giants carried Eli to a Playoff win.
Teams win football games, no QB can win a title on his own. Although, Eli in 2011 is about as close as I have seen to a QB carrying a team to a title.
The Pats are like a machine. They roll year in and year out.
I agree with this but this is another feather in Brady's cap if you ask me. He is a big part of building that culture in NE. That type of culture was not built before him. It was built with him. Without Brady, that culture is likely never built.
I am proving that the defense didnt shut down the Patriots which has been inferred to many times on this thread. I am in belief that the offense and special teams played a larger point in the win. Outside of tuck and chase making a play... out defnese was really non existent. I am not going to give credit to a unit because the other side had colossal fuck ups.
OK, fine - the defense did NOTHING that day - outside of Tuck and Blakburn making a few plays - they just got lucky that Brady made two bad passes out of 45 dropbacks.
Game was won due to Eli (I mean, "the offense") even though they only scored 19 points. And ST play.
I think I got it now!
JFC this place fucking blows sometimes.