After All: He's Only 40!

[bravos4evr]

I hate the pats so much, that if they were playing the Taliban or ISIS I would root for the Taliban.

Seriously. I hope their plane crashes on the way to the game killing everyone on board. My hatred is deep, offensively deep, and I am very happy with my psychopathic POV of them.

[steve B]

I bet you've got 283 reasons too.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I hate the pats so much, that if they were playing the Taliban or ISIS I would root for the Taliban.

Seriously. I hope their plane crashes on the way to the game killing everyone on board. My hatred is deep, offensively deep, and I am very happy with my psychopathic POV of them.

Infraction given. I don't want to see that kind of rhetoric on this board. You can have all of the psychopathic thoughts you want, just not here. Nothing personal ....

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

To no surprise, Tom Brady is headed to his Twentieth Super Bowl?

Brady is going to his 25th Superbowl - GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I hate the pats so much, that if they were playing the Taliban or ISIS I would root for the Taliban.

Hilarious!!! A lot of people can't stand them, including me, because they are in the Superbowl almost every year. However, we all have to admit one thing: Brady is the GOAT. Every time he wins, football fans complain about him cheating or doing something else, but then he does it again and again and again. Brady could win the Superbowl with one leg and football fans would still accuse him of doing something wrong.

[clydepepper]

While I do realize I started this thread (like Brady needs any more attention) but truth be told, aside from Gronk, through whose life, sans injuries, I live vicariously, I do hate both the Patriots and Alabama...and all this gives the Yankees time to become the damn Yankees again...triple yuck!

'Everyone hates Goliath' - maybe not an exact quote but certainly from someone who knew it was true.

I stand guilty as charged....and all that goes for the red sox too!


- I'll add one more point: Some of the espn 'experts' were spouting off today about how Brady is difference from anyone else- be it Manning, Rodgers, Brees, etc...

and it's hard to believe ANYONE thinks this: Brady is committed enough to GIVE UP HIS LIFE to be the best of all time.

Here's my question: Since when has being married to a super model, having healthy kids and making millions been considered 'giving up your life'?

[PowderedH2O]

I generally root against Brady, unless the opponent is someone I dislike more. Falcons? Saints fan here... Had to pull for Brady. Seahawks? Hard to pull for Richard Sherman... Had to pull for Brady. Giants? Nobody I disliked, so couldn't root for Brady. Eagles? Gotta like Filed (and Wentz). Ajayi, Jeffries, and the defense. Plus Philly fans are passionate. So, gotta root against Brady on this one.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

'Everyone hates Goliath' - maybe not an exact quote but certainly from someone who knew it was true.

"Nobody roots for Goliath" - Wilt Chamberlain

I hate the Pats, but as a Giant fan I love being the only team that has beat them in the Superbowl in the Belicheck/Brady era, so I root for them when they're not playing the G-Men.

[KCRfan1]

If Brady were on our team, we would love him.

He's one of the VERY few quarterbacks in the NFL who's job is to win the game for his team. The vast majority of quarterbacks have the job of not losing the game.

[the 'stache]

I don't think Brady is the greatest of all-time. Why do people continually confuse team accomplishments with individual greatness?

He's won five Super Bowls. Fact.
He's an all-time great. Fact.
He's a first ballot Hall of Famer. Opinion, but I can't see any way he's not.

He's the greatest of all-time. This is pure conjecture.

Football is a team sport. Brady is one part of a very successful Patriots franchise. But let's be honest, he's benefited tremendously from having one of the top three head coaches of the modern era, a Hall of Fame tight end for the past eight years, an owner who, time and time again, has shown a willingness to spend in free agency to make the team better, and, oh yeah, an historically great defense.

The names on the defensive side of the ball might not be sexy, and they have changed over time. But look where the Pats have finished in scoring defense the years they have won it all with Brady:

2001: 6th
2003: 1st
2004: 2nd
2014: 8th
2015: 1st

This year? They're 5th in scoring defense.

Say what you want about Brady. I don't dispute that he's a tremendous quarterback. Easily one of the best all-time. But if you take some of the other guys in the conversation, somebody like a Dan Marino, or even an Aaron Rodgers---give those guys the ridiculous wealth of resources that Brady has enjoyed--is it a stretch to imagine that they'd have just as many rings, if not more?

Tom Brady has a career 97.6 QB rating; he's thrown 488 TD passes against 160 INT, a career ratio of 3.05:1.
Aaron Rodgers, in the same era, has a career 103.8 QB rating; he's thrown 313 TD passes against 78 INT, a career ratio of 4.01:1. Brady is the only other guy with a 3:1 career ratio, and Rodgers is a full TD pass better.

What about Brady's performance during Rodgers' career as a starter, from 2008 on? Brady's QB rating while Rodgers has played is 100.8. Very close to Rodgers' 104.2, but still below it. Now, his TD to INT ratio is better, 291 TD to 74 INT, or 3.93:1, but it's still not as good as Rodgers'. And, you cannot simply compare the numbers from Rodgers first start forward against Brady, who'd already started six seasons in the NFL. Before 2008, Aaron Rodgers had only attempted 59 passes as Brett Favre's backup. Wanna say that "he learned so much from Favre?" Yes, he learned a good deal. But Favre was the ultimate gunslinger, making the impossible throws, but also making boneheaded turnovers. Rodgers is the anti-Favre. He's every bit as deadly, but he takes care of the ball much better than Favre ever did, even when he was winning three consecutive MVP awards.

Tom Brady, in his first MVP season, 2007, had Randy Moss, who went for 98 catches, 1,493 yards and 23 TD. He also had Wes Welker grabbing 112 passes. Gronkowski, though he has been dinged up from time to time, has been dominant. He's caught 76 TD passes in 102 career games.

Has Aaron Rodgers ever had a Hall of Fame receiver or right end? Nope. Jordy Nelson is very good, but he's not Moss. And Rodgers has never had that kind of weapon in the middle of the field.

Rodgers does every single thing that Brady can do, every bit as well. And he's absolutely lethal outside of the pocket, and as a scrambler.

But he doesn't have five Super Bowl rings. So, he's not the GOAT. Rodgers, in his third year as a starter, destroyed the Pittsburgh Steelers' #1 ranked defense in the Super Bowl, even though he lost the franchise's all-time leading receiver, Donald Driver, in the first half. He had Greg Jennings, James Jones who dropped a pass that would have been a 60 + yard touchdown, and Jordy Nelson, who was unproven. He also had James Starks at running back, who hadn't played all season.

Then, look at somebody like Dan Marino, who re-wrote all the passing records with absolutely nothing on his team besides Mark Clayton and Mark Duper. Give him the defense Brady has had, and that kind of a ridiculous mismatch at tight end. How many Super Bowls does he win?

If you want to call him a Hall of Famer, and all-time great, the greatest winner in the Super Bowl era--no problem. But when you start hailing him as the greatest to ever play the position, better-than-compelling arguments can be made that, while near the top, he is not the greatest all-time running away.

Originally Posted by samosa4u

However, we all have to admit one thing: Brady is the GOAT. Every time he wins, football fans complain about him cheating or doing something else, but then he does it again and again and again. Brady could win the Superbowl with one leg and football fans would still accuse him of doing something wrong.

[steve B]

I like that comparison with Rogers. Being in the same era it's an nice direct comparison.

Comparison with Marino is a bit less direct, but the point that Marino was spectacular on some iffy teams is a good one. Sometimes big traditional passing stats from anyone are because the defense wasn't good, and the QB had to pass a lot.

The team certainly has a lot to do with the results. As far as I can tell, stability is a major part of that.

If they'd lost that first superbowl, would they have stuck with Bledsoe? And when would Brady have gotten a chance?

And if they'd lost and then had a down year like they did, but decided to get rid of Belichick .. Maybe Brady never gets a shot.

At the time he was very much a system guy, loads of short passes with a good chance at completing them. Another coach maybe decides to make him a scrambler or pushes for more downfield low percentage plays, and if his confidence suffers as a result he ends up being average or worse.


There's so much that can go wrong or right during a career.


One player that I think just might actually be the best at his position all time is Gronk. Sometimes even the numbers he's put up in a half season where he missed games hurt would be a very nice season for most tight ends.
And yes, a part of that is system, and another part Brady.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I don't think Brady is the greatest of all-time. Why do people continually confuse team accomplishments with individual greatness?


Then, look at somebody like Dan Marino, who re-wrote all the passing records with absolutely nothing on his team besides Mark Clayton and Mark Duper. Give him the defense Brady has had, and that kind of a ridiculous mismatch at tight end. How many Super Bowls does he win?

If you want to call him a Hall of Famer, and all-time great, the greatest winner in the Super Bowl era--no problem. But when you start hailing him as the greatest to ever play the position, better-than-compelling arguments can be made that, while near the top, he is not the greatest all-time running away.

Quarterbacks dont play defense so Marino not having a Defense didnt impact his passing stats...he also had more weapons than just Clayton and Duper

I know its a team game but eventually year after year, if you keep winning super bowls not sure how that doest put you ahead. All of these comebacks even in last years super bowl against the falcons.. How do you measure that statistically. I know there are arguments you can make now even though 8 super bowls is getting silly...what if it gets to 14 super bowls? when the next 'great qb' in all history is stuck at 5...i do think it matters...and i hate brady by the way...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Bill you should watch the games, not just read the stat sheet. After all these years, and titles, and comeback victories, with innumerable different receivers, with or without decent running backs, with Gronk playing or not playing, it doesn't seem to matter, there is no question in my mind he is the greatest QB ever. The more interesting discussion is about the rest of the top 5, or 10.

[the 'stache]

Come on, Peter. That's kind of a dismissive statement, don't you think?

I have watched the games. Many of them. Every Super Bowl. A great number of the playoff games. I've not only watched them live, I've taped several of them, and watched them a second time. And, I've watched a plethora of key plays on Youtube more times than I can count. I allow for "the human factor" in my analysis; I have to. Not everything translates, statistically. You can't quantify the pressure of the moment. A receiver (or a safety) falling down. A tipped pass. I would never make a statement about Tom Brady, or any other player, simply off of statistical data.

I remember the 2001 AFC Divisional playoff game against the Raiders where Charles Woodson caused Brady to fumble. Brady should have never even gotten to that first Super Bowl, because the Raiders recovered, and the game should have been over with a Raiders victory. The "tuck rule" is complete BS. He wasn't in the process of throwing a pass. He started to, but brought the ball back down to his body, and then the ball got stripped. Part of his "legacy", his five rings, is a joke.

And I don't care what anybody else says. Having an elite defense in every one of those years he's won it all makes his job a hell of a lot easier. No matter who he has on the offensive side of the ball with him, if he screws up, he's got the security that his defense is going to bail him out a great deal of the time. It's much easier to win playoff games when the defense is incredible because you can push the ball downfield. You don't have to be perfect. No mistake? You score, and your chance of winning greatly increases. Screw it up? Your defense is not likely to allow the other team to score. Don't you think there's infinitely more pressure to perform on the shoulders of a guy like Aaron Rodgers? If he doesn't make a play, his team likely loses. More on that in a bit.

He should have lost the Super Bowl to Seattle. A brain fart call cost them a second title, and gave Brady another ring.

Again, I'm not saying Brady's not an incredible quarterback. He's clearly one of the best of all-time. But it's not a walk off (to use a baseball term in a football discussion) that he's the best to ever play the position. Look past the rings. Too often, we get distracted by shiny things. You have to look deeper at the individual's play within the success.

He's only ranked 13th in postseason passer rating. If he were the greatest ever, wouldn't he be higher? This whole discussion is based on what he's done in the post season. Well, I'm sorry, but a 90.1 QB rating is very good, but not outstanding. Bart Starr put up a 104.8 career passer rating in the post season. He went 9-1 in the playoffs. A .900 winning percentage. Both of those destroy Brady, and Starr played in an era where passing the ball was infinitely more difficult. He won five World Championships in seven years, and his one loss was in the 1960 NFL Championship against the Eagles.

Starr played in an era where the quarterback and receiver didn't get the ridiculous amount of protection they do now. They could, you know, actually get hit. If the ball came out when Starr got tackled, it was a fumble. No zebras were on the sidelines helping him out.

You know how many times the Patriots, in 36 post season games with Tom Brady at QB, have allowed more than 30 points to an opponent? 3 times. 1 time in every 12 starts, or 8.3% of the time Brady takes the field. They've never given up 40.

Compare that to the Packers with Aaron Rodgers. In 16 games with Rodgers at the helm, the Packers have surrendered 30 or more points 5 times. 1 time in every 3.2 starts, or 31% of the time Rodgers takes the field. And in 3 of those 5 games, the Packer D surrendered over 40 points, something the Patriots have never done under Brady. So much is made about Rodgers' legacy of "failure" in the post season. "He's only won one ring." In his first playoff start, Rodgers threw for 423 yards and 4 TD, and ran another in. The Packers put up 45 points--and lost 51-45 because the defense imploded. And the final play of the game, a fumble by Rodgers returned by the Cardinals for a score, should have been overturned. The Cardinal defender grabbed Rodgers facemask, and pulled his helmet down over his face. Had that been Brady, you know the play would have been overruled by the officials. By the way, in 36 career post season starts, Brady has thrown for more than 423 yards once, and more than 4 TD passes once. Rodgers did it in his first post season start. And lost. Was it Rodgers fault the defense gave up 45 points? How about when the Packers lost 31-45 to the 49ers in 2012? Is it Rodgers' fault that Collin Kaepernick, who can't even get a job in the NFL five years later, passed for 262 yards, and ran for 184? Is it Rodgers fault that the Packer D and special teams imploded in Seattle in the NFC Championship Game? Or, that the Packer D gave up 44 to the Falcons in the NFC Championship Game last year? Rodgers played without his #2 receiver, Davante Adams. His #1 receiver Jordy Nelson had missed the Cowboys game the week before, and could barely walk because of a broken rib. Both his starting halfbacks, Eddie Lacy and James Starks, were out for the season, so his wide receiver Ty Montgomery had to start at running back. But it's Rodgers "failure" as a quarterback. Tom Brady would have won, right?

Now, Brady has played slightly over twice as many games as Rodgers, but there's enough of a sample size to make these comparisons.

Brady has a career 90.1 passer rating in the post season.
Rodgers has a 99.4.

The Patriots have scored 969 points in 36 playoff games under Brady, or 26.9 ppg.
The Packers have scored 457 points in 16 playoff games under Rodgers, or 28.6 ppg.

So, under Rodgers, the Packers have outperformed the Brady Patriots by 1.7 ppg. Not a huge difference, about a safety. But it's still clear that Rodgers and the Packer offense have been better than Brady and the Patriot offense in the playoffs.

But here is the difference.

The Patriots have allowed 722 points in 36 playoff games with Brady, or 20.1 ppg.
The Packers have allowed 423 points in 16 playoff games with Rodgers, or 26.4 ppg.
The Patriots defense have surrendered nearly a full touchdown, per game, less than the Packers. 6.3 ppg. At least two field goals. And that is why Brady has five rings, and Rodgers only one. It's not because Brady has performed better. It's because the Patriots have had a terrific scoring defense. The Packers have not, outside of the season they won the Super Bowl (they were #2 in scoring allowed).

Look at the point differential.

The Pats have scored 247 more points in the playoffs than they have allowed, in 36 games.
The Packers have scored 34 more points in the playoffs than they have allowed, in 16 games.
The Pats have an average margin of 6.86 points per game. Nearly a touchdown.
The Packers have an average margin of 2.12 points per game.

And that's post season. Look at how the two teams have fared in scoring defense in the regular season.



In 17 seasons with Brady, the Patriots defense has finished outside the top 10 in scoring defense only 3 times! And every season they've won the Super Bowl, they've been top 10: 6th, 1st, 2nd, 8th and 1st.

In 10 years with Rodgers, the Packer defense has finished in the top 10 in scoring defense only 2 times! Look where the Packer D has ended up each season in points allowed. The last seven seasons, since winning the Super Bowl, the Packers have finished, on average, 18th in the league. The last 5, 19th in the league, out of 32 teams. Put another way, the Packers have finished in the bottom half in the NFL in points allowed four of the last seven seasons. The Patriots? They've done that twice in 17 seasons. Average finish in the NFL in scoring for their careers? The Patriots have finished 8th (7.52) in the NFL in scoring defense, on average, for Brady's career. Top 1/4 of the league for the entirety of the time he's been in the NFL. The Packers? 16th, on average (15.7). Middle of the NFL.

And that's just the defense.

Anybody saying that Tom Brady is simply "the greatest" because of his rings really needs to look deeper.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill you should watch the games, not just read the stat sheet. After all these years, and titles, and comeback victories, with innumerable different receivers, with or without decent running backs, with Gronk playing or not playing, it doesn't seem to matter, there is no question in my mind he is the greatest QB ever. The more interesting discussion is about the rest of the top 5, or 10.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Bart Starr put up a 104.8 career passer rating in the post season. He went 9-1 in the playoffs. A .900 winning percentage. Both of those destroy Brady, and Starr played in an era where passing the ball was infinitely more difficult. He won five World Championships in seven years, and his one loss was in the 1960 NFL Championship against the Eagles.

Starr also played on a team with a great defense.

I haven't looked, but I'd think there are few superbowl winners who haven't had at least a very good defense.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill you should watch the games, not just read the stat sheet. After all these years, and titles, and comeback victories, with innumerable different receivers, with or without decent running backs, with Gronk playing or not playing, it doesn't seem to matter, there is no question in my mind he is the greatest QB ever. The more interesting discussion is about the rest of the top 5, or 10.

I remember when football was a game played by the players, before their helmets were headsets and the real quarterbacks called their own plays.

Now you have offensive coordinators, defensive coordinators, all with access to instaneous video of what the other team is doing in alignments and reactions to each other. Every team has a plethora of coaching personnel both on the sideline and in the press box.

The NFL has become a giant video game orchestrated from off the field. Yeah, they can call audibles before the snap, but many of these can be communicated from off the field.

Let’s face it, the players are like pawns on a chess board. Does anyone ever talk about the best bishop or rook of all-time? Does anyone think that Brady or Rodgers is a queen? Hell no.

Is any quarterback solely responsible for calling dumb ass play that costs team a game? Rarely if ever.

In my opinion the responsibility for the Patriots run falls squarely on the shoulders of the man in the hoodie, Bill Belichick.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

In my opinion the responsibility for the Patriots run falls squarely on the shoulders of the man in the hoodie, Bill Belichick.

I agree. BB as GM and head coach has orchestrated this dynasty. He finds all the right pieces to the puzzle. Goes after players who are coachable and will do what he tells them. Put Brady on the Browns for the past 15 years and how many SB rings (or even appearances) does he have? BB wants players who put the team before themselves. You won't see them tweeting about how they're gonna win, etc.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Quarterbacks dont play defense so Marino not having a Defense didnt impact his passing stats...he also had more weapons than just Clayton and Duper

If the defense is average to bad, there's more chance you're playing while behind, and that traditionally means more passing. So it does affect the stats. If I had the time and inclination I'd do some sort of math study of it, but I'm just not that into the math.

I did use that sort of concept playing fantasy FB, which is pretty much about nothing but stats. I only put maybe 2-3 players in my draft list, and by week three there was always a good idea who was becoming "good" and had been overlooked. SO for me the revolving door spun a lot!
Had Welker on the Dolphins when we got points for return yards..
And Gore with SF the same.
Then the guy running it took away return yards.
Had a nice run of kickers with range who played for teams with really average offenses. Made the difference a few times.
The he took away the huge point difference between 30-50 yard FGs and 50+
Had Brady for a change when Moss was on the team.
Next year he changed QB touchdowns from 6 points to 4....

Eventually he gave up.
I think I won 3 times in 7 years, second twice more and only missed the playoffs once.

[KCRfan1]

Look no further than Green Bay this season for how important the quarterback is. The loss of AR flipped their season. Even with other injuries, the quarterback was key, and usually is with teams.

Brady drives the Pats. They can have injury and turnover at other positions, but not at QB.

It's not the X's and O's, it's the Jimmy's and the Joe's. Play calling is important, more importantly is the players and execution. High performance. Brady brings that to level not seen before. His overall body of work is superior to others and is the GOAT.

[HRBAKER]

Ah the vitriol for Brady, Belichick and the Pats.
It reminds me of the hate for Alabama.

Not a Pats fan as I am a Cards fan but I marvel at what they have done and continue to do. In my mind without question he is the best to ever play the position. Of course, it's a question with no answer merely points of view.

My guess is if he played most folks' team with the same results they would feel the same way about him that the Pats fans and many others do. Success breeds contempt and also affects viewpoints.

[the 'stache]

See, now the bolded part is pure hyperbole. Because in 2008, they did lose Brady. The year after he was First Team NFL All Pro, and NFL MVP for the first time, he blew out his ACL in week one. Attempted 11 passes before getting hurt.

The Patriots without "Tom Terrific" went 11-5. They suffered soooo mightily as Matt Cassel came in and threw for 3,700 yards and 21 TD passes. Somehow, without Captain America, Wes Welker and Randy Moss both managed to go for over 1,000 yards. Welker went to the Pro Bowl.

And this?

"High performance. Brady brings that to level not seen before."

What level is that? 13th best, all-time, in the post season?

Again, pure hyperbole. It sounds good. But factually, inaccurate.

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

Look no further than Green Bay this season for how important the quarterback is. The loss of AR flipped their season. Even with other injuries, the quarterback was key, and usually is with teams.

Brady drives the Pats. They can have injury and turnover at other positions, but not at QB.

It's not the X's and O's, it's the Jimmy's and the Joe's. Play calling is important, more importantly is the players and execution. High performance. Brady brings that to level not seen before. His overall body of work is superior to others and is the GOAT.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by steve B

If the defense is average to bad, there's more chance you're playing while behind, and that traditionally means more passing. So it does affect the stats. If I had the time and inclination I'd do some sort of math study of it, but I'm just not that into the math.

I did use that sort of concept playing fantasy FB, which is pretty much about nothing but stats. I only put maybe 2-3 players in my draft list, and by week three there was always a good idea who was becoming "good" and had been overlooked. SO for me the revolving door spun a lot!
Had Welker on the Dolphins when we got points for return yards..
And Gore with SF the same.
Then the guy running it took away return yards.
Had a nice run of kickers with range who played for teams with really average offenses. Made the difference a few times.
The he took away the huge point difference between 30-50 yard FGs and 50+
Had Brady for a change when Moss was on the team.
Next year he changed QB touchdowns from 6 points to 4....

Eventually he gave up.
I think I won 3 times in 7 years, second twice more and only missed the playoffs once.

We not talking about fantasy football. When you are down, yes you can get more passing yards but also at a risk of INTs...you dont see QBs who lose 40-24 usually throw for 3 tds and 0 picks....

its not like Brady is throwing for 220 yards and managing the games. He is throwing for enough yards and 'winning' enough games in my book to reach critical mass to be declared the best even when compared to any players that 'crush' him in yards/tds etc or would have crushed him if they played today.

Plus Brady has shown to win games with a bunch of rotating WR RBs that have cycled throughout the league. Marino clayton and duper is not even closes to montana having Taylor/Rice and many more other better options.

Basically if we list the best options Brady had , i believe for the most part its Brady (and the Brady/Pats system) that made them great.

Matt Cassal did win 10 games though...anyway..


Bill Russell is sort of lumped into the great, but it was his team category. I dont think Brady is remotely close to Russell. In todays modern era in football and salary cap and concussions, good luck ever seeing another QB go and start in 8 superbowls ever again.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

We not talking about fantasy football. When you are down, yes you can get more passing yards but also at a risk of INTs...you dont see QBs who lose 40-24 usually throw for 3 tds and 0 picks....

its not like Brady is throwing for 220 yards and managing the games. He is throwing for enough yards and 'winning' enough games in my book to reach critical mass to be declared the best even when compared to any players that 'crush' him in yards/tds etc or would have crushed him if they played today.

Plus Brady has shown to win games with a bunch of rotating WR RBs that have cycled throughout the league. Marino clayton and duper is not even closes to montana having Taylor/Rice and many more other better options.

Basically if we list the best options Brady had , i believe for the most part its Brady (and the Brady/Pats system) that made them great.

Matt Cassal did win 10 games though...anyway..


Bill Russell is sort of lumped into the great, but it was his team category. I dont think Brady is remotely close to Russell. In todays modern era in football and salary cap and concussions, good luck ever seeing another QB go and start in 8 superbowls ever again.

No, but the results there are directly tied to the real world stats.
Teams with mediocre offenses or good offenses against better defenses will use the kicker more.
A good QB on a team that has a poor defense will throw for more yards more often. - Rogers, Brees



I do think the team has been amazing, and I've been fortunate to be a fan during that run. A long way from them getting crushed by the bears, or Rod Rust nearly getting electrocuted by the microphone at his introductory press conference..

That there are QBs like Rogers and Brees who put up flashy enough stats to make an argument that winning the most might not make you the best player at a position also says a lot about the entire last 20 years.