After All: He's Only 40!

steve B · #1 01-27-2018, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

theres winning and then theres WINNING.

people used to argue bradshaw/montana etc cause of a whopping 4 superbowls...versus some passing stat stud with 1 or 0 superbowls

when you are getting to 8 superbowls..possibly 10 ...this type of argument really looks silly now when going against a guy with all those SB appearences

manage the game qbs like Dilfer etc , yeah they will get to a super bowl perhaps..but to get into 8, the QB has to be good..again its not like brady averages 200 yards a game either...his passing stats are up there too..and the counting stats etc..

My friends and I used to have the same sort of debate - Brady or Peyton Manning? Manning was flashier, especially early on, more yards, more TDs. But Brady won more. With us it was a lot more basic than it is here. More like "manning is awesome! he threw for 350" ( or 400 or whatever it was.)
"Brady only threw for 147". Yeah, but the Colts lost and the Pats won, so who's really better?

Brady was a game manager early on, that was the knock against him, that he just killed people with so many 5-10 yard passes and not making to many risky throws or trying to force a play that wasn't there.

One of the non-stat things that would make me put him up there as the best would be that over the 18 years he's changed from a fairly conservative manager to someone that throws down field, to someone very different from most, neither a manager or shooting for long plays, but taking what's left available for him. There aren't many players in any sport that can change styles without a few years of adjustment.
That he's got a coaching staff that adjusts plays and styles to match a players abilities, and ownership that provides stability by not panicking if there's a season that isn't spectacular has made that easier, but how many players do you see who can't adjust when there's a new coach with a different style.

1952boyntoncollector · #2 01-29-2018, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B

My friends and I used to have the same sort of debate - Brady or Peyton Manning? Manning was flashier, especially early on, more yards, more TDs. But Brady won more. With us it was a lot more basic than it is here. More like "manning is awesome! he threw for 350" ( or 400 or whatever it was.)
"Brady only threw for 147". Yeah, but the Colts lost and the Pats won, so who's really better?

Brady was a game manager early on, that was the knock against him, that he just killed people with so many 5-10 yard passes and not making to many risky throws or trying to force a play that wasn't there.

One of the non-stat things that would make me put him up there as the best would be that over the 18 years he's changed from a fairly conservative manager to someone that throws down field, to someone very different from most, neither a manager or shooting for long plays, but taking what's left available for him. There aren't many players in any sport that can change styles without a few years of adjustment.
That he's got a coaching staff that adjusts plays and styles to match a players abilities, and ownership that provides stability by not panicking if there's a season that isn't spectacular has made that easier, but how many players do you see who can't adjust when there's a new coach with a different style.

right...i also hate the 'more talented' argument for other players... talent is like potential. The goal is to win games. Id take someone that actually goes to superbowls than someone with all the talent in the world that cant.

Bird in the hand is the QB that's been there and done that. The what if game can work for a little bit (what if this guy was on that team ) if the margin is small but with brady its just silly to compare. There are players that that get hurt and never play again after a few years and I'm sure we can do the 'what if' game being that if the never got hurt and played on X team and since they are the most talented now THEY are the best player...not the guy that actually played 18 years and won more championships than anyone else..

there are also gimmick years. ie run and shoot etc but after a yearly adjustment, the stats change. Brady is no gimmick. Who cares if he doesn't have the strongest arm versus this guy or doesn't do this versus that guy.. If you don't play the seasons, you don't get the credt.

if some guy played 5 years and won 5 superbowls and retired and was the most talented ever, i would still put him behind brady because the guy that plays 10 more years plus gets more credit...

basically if i had a franchise, would i want a guy for 5 years with 500 touchdowns and 5 championships or a guy like brady...

steve B · #3 01-29-2018, 11:15 AM

The problem with that reasoning is that none of what a player does happens in a vacuum. There's an entire team, plus the coaching staff, plus the office people and owner. Everything they do affects what happens on the field.

Yes, the individual players have to be good or great. And they all have tendencies, but that only goes so far. Farve was a great QB, but had a tendency to try to force plays and that led to a lot of interceptions.
The Giants beat the Pats twice because they had a tendency to be beatable on long plays especially late in the game. Maybe an over focusing on stopping first downs made the secondary beatable?
I was always surprised that teams didn't try long plays more often against them. Happy, but surprised.
Would you blame Brady for those losses? Of course not.

But that's what happens on other teams, success isn't immediate, so someone, either a QB or coach or someone else is picked as the cause and they're out.
Look at the 49ers. Harbaugh was pretty good for three years, then one not so good year and he's out. The next year they were worse - Bring in another coach, worse still. Blame the QB who was actually just about as good as he'd been the year they went to the Superbowl as he was that year when he was 1-10. Bring in still another coach and QB, and lose everything until one really lucky trade. Is Garoppolo that good? Or were Bethard and Hoyer that bad? Or did Garoppolo simply bring a better attitude and process to things. Or maybe the way the other two guys work best isn't what the coach wanted to do.
We'll have to wait and see, but I think Garoppolo is in for some rough times in SF.

Brady is great, but a part of that has to be due to the team and overall system and the ownership that has the patience to give them the stability to take some risks. (How many other coaches would have survived a 4th and short failure handing the ball to Peyton Manning late in a playoff game? How many other owners would have supported that position and carried on like it was business as usual? )

Peter_Spaeth · #4 01-29-2018, 12:15 PM

Of course it takes a whole team and organization to win consistently. That misses the point, and there are no "buts" qualifying Brady's greatness. Nobody in the history of the game, in my opinion, has more consistently made good use of that 3 or 4 seconds you have after the snap to choose a target and throw than Brady. He has won with and without great receivers, with and without strong running backs. And here he is at age 40!!! coming off an MVP season and going to yet another Super Bowl. Nuff ced.