POLL Who Is the Greatest Quarterback of All Time?

[soxfan1468927]

Not when its based on opinion.....Tom Brady has a ring in a game he threw for 145 yards, but history will ignore that.......There are huge postseason games, including 2 SB's that I believe they lost mostly because of Tom Brady, but again, history ignores those

And Rodgers won a ring in a playoff run where he threw for 180 one game and scored 14 offensive points in another. Just because neither of those games came in the Super Bowl doesn't change the fact that his defense allowing 14 and 16 points in those two games was a big reason they won. I mean, Rodgers is one onside kick recovery away from being 2-0 in playoff games where he has a passer rating under 60.

 

[soxfan1468927]

I can pull up N=1's where Rodgers wins if the defense gives up X as well. This doesn't seem particularly compelling. The probability is duly noted but the improbable is often reality. SB 51 the Patriots had sub 1% odds of winning the game. I don't view things in the lens of clutch- but moreso probability.

I'm just responding to this idea that Brady has never won a Super Bowl when his defense was sub-par. I would say giving up 29 points is a sub-par performance, especially in 2003, and they won the Super Bowl.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Meh, IIRC Hoody still has a losing record without Brady due to the Browns days. They compliment each other- that's good enough for me. If Brady isn't the GOAT he is not at all far from being it. Many great coaches never get the luxury of a QB that can propel their team in the playoffs. Coming from a guy who adamantly believes Hoody is the GOAT.

Won 11 games with Matt Cassell, would have went 4-0 last season with Jimmy had he not gone down last season

I think BB has established a winning system there, but no doubt Brady takes them to another level

 

[Fountain City Blues]

I'm just responding to this idea that Brady has never won a Super Bowl when his defense was sub-par. I would say giving up 29 points is a sub-par performance, especially in 2003, and they won the Super Bowl.

Over the course of a full season- it is 100% correct. That defense was still a good defense regardless of their performance in the SB.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Won 11 games with Matt Cassell, would have went 4-0 last season with Jimmy had he not gone down last season

I think BB has established a winning system there, but no doubt Brady takes them to another level

Todd Haley won 10 games with Cassel. Big deal. Reid had guys giving up picks for Kolb, Detmer, and the like. Big deal.

 

[GNG]

Meh, IIRC Hoody still has a losing record without Brady due to the Browns days. They compliment each other- that's good enough for me. If Brady isn't the GOAT he is not at all far from being it. Many great coaches never get the luxury of a QB that can propel their team in the playoffs. Coming from a guy who adamantly believes Hoody is the GOAT.

Belichick has Brady and Lombardi had Starr. Great combinations.

 

[Ricky Roma]

Marino and Fouts were snake bit.

No. They are clear cut examples that football is arguably the ultimate team game. Certainly a more team-oriented back then as opposed to the game today - which is more QB-driven.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Belichick has Brady and Lombardi had Starr. Great combinations.

This is generally the case when you see a gob of rings. Great coach and great QB. Often times one is lacking the other (or the GM is ass)

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

And Rodgers won a ring in a playoff run where he threw for 180 one game and scored 14 offensive points in another. Just because neither of those games came in the Super Bowl doesn't change the fact that his defense allowing 14 and 16 points in those two games was a big reason they won. I mean, Rodgers is one onside kick recovery away from being 2-0 in playoff games where he has a passer rating under 60.

Exactly, thats why I have a problem just using rings as the only measure

As great as Brady was in the second half of the Seattle SB, if Malcolm Butler doesnt make possibly the greatest play in SB history, he has one less ring, and history will reflect that, but shouldnt take away from how great he was that day.......But it would using only the Rings measure

 

[GNG]

No. They are clear cut examples that football is arguably the ultimate team game. Certainly a more team-oriented back then as opposed to the game today - which is more QB-driven.

Yes the new rules favor offense over defense.

 

[Ricky Roma]

Both defenses sucked. Just liked Atlanta. That's at least 50% of the reason those teams lost. Don't hate because NE is continually one
Of the best balanced and coached teams.

And your point is?

 

[NWPATSFAN]

I vote we never have another "greatest" thread when it deals with a team sport
Because individual stats happen without team mates doing their job, yet championships are team wins only

 

[NWPATSFAN]

It's amazing how Patriots fans give Brady all the credit and ignore the architect of that team Bill Belichick.

No way "All Hail Bill" he's arguably the greatest coach but doesn't get near enough credit as the "GM".

 

[soxfan1468927]

Over the course of a full season- it is 100% correct. That defense was still a good defense regardless of their performance in the SB.

Well sure over the course of a season, but you said win the Super Bowl. Defense was great in 2003, but they didn't play well in that Super Bowl. If the defense was sub-par in the regular season, but then DID play well in the playoffs, would you say the offense carried them to a title? I mean in 2011 the defense wasn't good at all, but they came very close to winning the Super Bowl. But they didn't lose because of a mediocre defense.

Attaching regular season success to the postseason doesn't really work.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Exactly, thats why I have a problem just using rings as the only measure

As great as Brady was in the second half of the Seattle SB, if Malcolm Butler doesnt make possibly the greatest play in SB history, he has one less ring, and history will reflect that, but shouldnt take away from how great he was that day.......But it would using only the Rings measure

And do I seem like someone who uses the rings argument?

 

[GNG]

No way "All Hail Bill" he's arguably the greatest coach but doesn't get near enough credit as the "GM".

Yes Bill is a great GM as well as coach. Many folks don't realize his eye for talent.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Won 11 games with Matt Cassell, would have went 4-0 last season with Jimmy had he not gone down last season

I think BB has established a winning system there, but no doubt Brady takes them to another level

And Cassell had a better season throwing to Dwayne Bowe and Tony Moeaki in the Chiefs system than he did throwing to Moss and Welker in the Patriots system.

 

[GNG]

I vote we never have another "greatest" thread when it deals with a team sport
Because individual stats happen without team mates doing their job, yet championships are team wins only

There will never be consensus on GOAT but it is fun to discuss.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Well sure over the course of a season, but you said win the Super Bowl. Defense was great in 2003, but they didn't play well in that Super Bowl. If the defense was sub-par in the regular season, but then DID play well in the playoffs, would you say the offense carried them to a title? I mean in 2011 the defense wasn't good at all, but they came very close to winning the Super Bowl. But they didn't lose because of a mediocre defense.

Attaching regular season success to the postseason doesn't really work.

Seeding matters a great deal so I'd say more than is popularly believed. So sure.

I am more responding to the undercurrent that Brady is the unquestioned GOAT because of rings when I think that's completely the wrong way to look at it- and I think he's very worthy of being in that conversation.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

And Cassell had a better season throwing to Dwayne Bowe and Tony Moeaki in the Chiefs system than he did throwing to Moss and Welker in the Patriots system.

Helps if your RB threatens matching your YPA most of the season.