he was the best before he put up elite #s, #s tell part of the story. he had excellent talent at WR for one healthy season(2007).
The pressure is back on Aaron Rodgers, anything less than a NFC championship game is considered a failure imo for the Packers.
You can't be the best if you aren't better than everyone else. A big part of being better than everyone else is putting up similar and better numbers than the best QBs in football. It's why Brees, Rodgers, Brady, and P. Manning have created a tier of their own in the NFL right now. Nobody can hang with them season to season for the last 2-3 years now. If you aren't dominating the league year to year, you can't be considered the best. It's why Eli Manning and Big Ben haven't entered that tier of QBs. Do you not consider his 2009 year healthy? His 2011-2012 receiving talent has been great too, but that's because of the versatility of the TEs and Bill's adjustment in the offense. So although WR talent dropped, his receiving talent was still very strong. I don't think missing the NFC championship game would be a failure. Missing the playoffs would be a failure. Losing the division could even be considered a failure. But the championship game, nahh I think that's too much.
it's not all about #s, peyton was putting up historical #s and choking every postseason(not much different from today) but Brady was putting up good #s and winning every postseason. ben is slightly behind those top guys mainly b/c of durability and off field stuff. eli is nowhere near those guys b/c despite SB caliber talent he's led his team to missing 3 of the last 4 postseasons. It's about more than #s
If you can't consistently play the QB position as good or better than your peers can, you aren't better than them. With the differences in teams, players, coaches, strategies, injuries, luck, the most valuable thing a QB can do is be one of the best QBs consistently, year in and year out for his team. Brees, Rodgers, Manning, and Brady have shown the ability to do that the past few years. While other QBs like Ryan, Romo, Stafford, Rivers, Eli, Big Ben, etc have shown at times the ability to play at the level as the tier I mentioned, they haven't been able to do it for a whole season or multiple seasons, hence they don't belong in the tier. That's the way it goes. That's why Brady has entered the discussion as one of the best QBs in the league, not because of 2001-2004, but because he has dominated the league since 2007 and his "off years" since then have still kept him as one of the best QBs in the league. That's the way it goes. If you can't consistently play the QB position better than your peers, you aren't better than them. That's why Brady is in the top tier now. If he didn't up his level of play for the past 6 years/5 seasons, he would be in the Big Ben and Eli tier. Same with Rodgers too except past 4 seasons. EDIT: In sports everything is going to come back to numbers. There are rare cases where in the MLB the numbers can be argued to be invalidated, but it always comes back to numbers. Every discussion or point of emphasis will have a basis with some stat or some numbers. It's the choice of what numbers that actual becomes quite important. Like choosing QBR and things like that.
If you think back to 2005 or 2006, the discussion of "best QB in the league" pretty much always came down to Manning, Brady, and Palmer. I'm not sure how he could be one of the consensus top 3 QBs in the league, yet you argue he didn't "outplay the competition" or "become elite" until 2007. It's a little difficult finding QB rankings from seven years ago, but I welcome you to give it a try. Here are the first relevant articles that I was able to find when I googled "Best QB in the league 2005". Brady is in the top three in all of them. I expect that you would have a hard time finding one where he isn't. That should be a better indication of whether he was elite or not than the stats. http://voices.yahoo.com/fantasy-football-2006-top-10-quarterbacks-22726.html?cat=14 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2005-08-03-sw-rankings-quarterbacks_x.htm http://forum.nfluk.com/showthread.php?t=14252 http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?p=6176434 If you look at Peyton's stats, his past three seasons are all among his top four in terms of TDs and yardage. It isn't just Brady, the whole league has become more QB-centric. Plus the Patriots of 2001-2006 were a much different team than any of the current teams that have so-called "elite" QBs. We had great defenses and strong running games, and thus our game plans were focused on consistent production and limiting mistakes. Now our offensive strategy has become to put up points and yardage totals that the opposing team just simply can't hope to match. Of course the QB's numbers are going to increase as the team shifts so much responsibility onto his shoulders.
...and to add onto my last post: Tom Brady led the league in TDs in 2002, led the league in yardage in 2005, ranked 3rd in TDs in 2005, 4th in TDs 2006. Even in a conservative offense, Brady's numbers were pretty impressive if you actually look at it in the context of what other QBs were doing those years. In 2006 he was throwing to Reche Caldwell as his top weapon, and he still ranked among the best QBs. DirtySanchez criticizes him for not throwing 30 TDs, yet that is a feat that NO QB accomplished in 2002, only one (Favre) reached in 2003, only one (Palmer) again in 2005, and again only one QB managed to reach in 2006 (Manning). The year that Brady DID surpass 4000 yards, he was one of only two QBs to do it. It's clear that his standards for top QB play just aren't really applicable to the era that he is trying to judge.
I could see 2005, I think 2006 was a little bit of a downturn so there goes the consistency part. The whole idea of "the belt" and the "tier" in my mind is being able to do it season after season.. 2007 onwards ended any discussion of it I think. That season then the followup seasons though, his TD% jumped up big time and his INT went down big time. In his last 5 seasons, Brady has the 5 of his 6 highest TD percentages and 5 of his lowest INT %s (his lowest being numbers he has tied before in his career). But with those %s changing dramatically, he has also thrown for 4 out of his 5 highest attempts in a year in his lat 5 years. Granted we have hindsight for that. We had no idea that after 2007 or after the 08 injury Brady would still keep on doing this. And I agree the responsibility shifts, but teams, I don't think Brady dominated or was consistently playing at as high a level as from 2007 onwards. That's why I think these past 5 years have really put him in that top tier QBs more so than his first 5 years. Because, adding more responsibility on a QB doesn't necessairly mean their stats should becomes better. IN theory the cumulative stats should go up like yards/attempts, etc, but for their efficiency to go up means the QB is playing at a higher level also. I know it's not perfect, but for a quick look, since 2007 Brady has been a top 3 QB on football outsiders every single year (except 2008). Before 07 Brady was top 5 twice and top 3 once. I believe he was also #1 3 of the past 6 seasons too. He's going to go down as one of the greatest QBs ever to play the game, but I think this stretch of play from 2007 onwards is much more better, efficient, and impressive than his stretch from 2001-2006. I'm not trying to disparage Brady, like I said he is going to be one of the greatest QBs of all time, I just think his most recent run of 07 onwards put him in that top tier of QBs where from 01-06 he might have been just under that top tier so like where a Matt Ryan is right now if that makes sense? A very effective QB but just not top enough from him consistenly to be considered in that top tier.
#s alone don't tell the whole story, when are these #s being earned? garbage time? against bad teams? in dome in perfect conditions? if you put up big #s then fold when it matters most what do those #s really matter? Most people evaluate strictly on #s, that doesn't make it right.
Pro Football Reference does player similarity scores where they take the shape of a player's career and compare it to the most similar players in NFL history. Tom Brady's Top 3 = Drew Brees, Roger Staubach and Trent Green. Peyton Manning's Top 3 = Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana and Dan Marino. That would suggest that Brady, while great, is not on the same plateau as Peyton Manning. Both Brady and Manning have enough seasons under their belt that the similarity scores aren't going to change much at this point. Johnny Unitas and Dan Marino have been in the top 3 in similarity scores with Manning in every season calculated for him. There is no player who has been in Brady's similarity score in every season calculated. The people who have been there most often are Eli Manning 4 times, Mark Brunell 4 times and Boomer Esiason 4 times. Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana and Dan Marino or Eli Manning, Mark Brunell and Boomer Esiason? Anybody? Anybody got the clear answer here as to which has been the greater QB compared to his peers? We can't do Aaron Rodgers yet because he doesn't have enough seasons to qualify. At a guess he will have Dan Marino and Johnny Unitas in the Top 3 when he gets out to 10 years or so. I'm also guessing Peyton Manning will be the third guy although it could also be Brett Favre. You either believe that Wilt Chamberlain is one of the greatest players of all time or that Bill Russell was clearly better than him. There's no middle ground here. One of them won scoring and rebound titles every year but had difficulty in the playoffs because of the talent around him, the other guy won titles every year because he played on a great team with a lot of talent around him.
and yet another reason why we don't evaluate based solely on individual fantasy stats. There isn't a halfway knowledgeable fan alive who would put Brady in the same group as Trent Green- a QB who never did anything in this league. When will fans learn? we have access to more footage and info than ever before yet we still evaluate based strictly on meaningless fantasy #s.
Yes, he was above average, and not elite in his early years. I'm not being critical about him, just realistic about what his stats were before his breakthrough in 2007. The year he lead the league in yardage, Peyton Manning sat one and a half games at the end of the season. The standards I'm going by are 4000 yards and 30 TDs. You're trying to claim they don't apply by cherry picking years. Lets go back further. In 1998 3 QB's broke 30 TDs. Young, Cunningham and Farve. In 1999 2 QB's broke 30 TDs. Warner and Beuerlein. In fact Warner broke 40 TDs. If someone broke 40 before Brady even started his career, how is 30 an unfair barrier for an elite QB during Brady's era? In 2000 3 QB's broke 30 TDs. Culpepper, Manning and Garcia. In 2001 3 QB's broke 30 TDs. Warner, Farve, and Garcia. In 2002, a statistical down year no QB broke 30 TDs. Brady lead the league with 28. In 2003, 1 QB broke 30 TDs. Brett Farve ( Peyton Manning had 29, Brady had 23) In 2004 4 QB's broke 30 TDs. Peyton Manning, Culpepper, McNabb and Farve. In fact Manning had 49 TDs! If Manning had 49 TDs during this era, why is it unfair to judge Brady by that standard? In 2005 1 QB broke 30 TDs. Carson Palmer. Peyton Manning however had 29 and he sat out the last game and half of the season. In 2006 1 QB broke 30 TDs. Peyton Manning. I think 30 touchdowns is a fair bar to set. Brady fell short of that bar often in his early career. He wasn't as good as the elite QBs of that era (you could perhaps argue the offense or talent held him back). Brady turned the corner 2007. Maybe it was Moss, maybe it was Welker. Maybe it was the second year of McDaniels offense. Or maybe it just "clicked" on for him. But it's clear statistically that he wasn't as good as the best QBs early in his career. I can make an even better argument about the 4000 yards thing but I won't bother, other than to state QB's were breaking 4000 yards in the 80s (and even earlier!). 4000 yards and 30 TDs is a fair bar for judging an elite QB from 2002-2006.
Stats tell us part of the story, the problem is to most fans they tell the entire story. No context just straight stats. Never mind Peyton has had elite weapons to throw to since day 1 and played the majority of his games in domes, fans just like at the great reg season #s. They also ignore the postseasons where he has killed his teams chances of getting to and winning SBs. It's all about fantasy #s. You can post all those #s and pretend to justify Brady not being elite until 2007 but again I present the evidence from 2006. he led his team w/in a few pts of the SB w/ Jabar Gaffney and Reche Caldwell as his main weapons. What QB in the history of the game can say that? Stop just looking at #s, start watching games and truly appreciating how great certain players are.
Marvin Harrison never broke 1000 yards before Peyton got there. You think Peyton had elite weapons because you don't remember Marvin Harrison with Jim Harbaugh and the other assortment of QB's before Peyton Manning. Football is a team sport. Just like the Jets could carry a shit QB like Sanchez to the playoffs, Manning often elevated the play of those around him to impressive heights. I don't judge QB's by post season losses. Plenty of great QB's never won a superbowl or didn't have a whole lot of post season success. Winning in the playoffs comes down to a lot of things, most of it how good your whole team is. Is Dan Mario a bad QB? He didn't lead dick, the defense is what led them there. They were second in the league in defense, twefth in offense. It's only the fantasy in your brain that makes you think Brady "led" that team in 2006. It's the same idiotic opinion you hold with Sanchez that Sanchez somehow "led" the Jets to two AFC Championship games, when in fact he was carried there. The only difference is Brady got the best WR of the past 20 years the next year, and another pro-bowl WR to go with that and put in one of the best season a QB ever has. Sanchez got 3 pro bowl WR's in 2011 and shit the bed. Anecdotally, Peyton Manning was much better than Tom Brady early in Brady's career. That's just from watching Manning for the last 14 seasons. If you want to just compare baseless opinions, I can do that too but it's pretty boring and idiotic. I do think Brady has been elite from 2007 on, he just simply wasn't early in his career.
Marvin Harrison was still transitioning from QB to WR and was a very young player. Want to see the impact Peyton had/ 1997 w/o Peyton(his 2nd year in the league by the way and WRs didn't make a major impact right away back then): 73 recs, 866 yds, 6 TDs 1998 w/ Peyton: 59 recs, 776 yds, 7 TDs he started 3 more games in '97 but the #s are similar either way despite jim harbaugh(at the end of his career), Paul Justin & Kelly Holcomb throwing him the ball. Marvin Harrison was going to be great no matter who was throwing to him. he also had some guy named Marshall Faulk his rookie year then they traded Faulk and got some bum named Edgerrin James. He's had elite weapons since day 1. football is a team sport and Peyton has had great teams around him, mark never had a GREAT team around him. manning didn't elevate anything in postseason, he dragged them down. mark elevated in postseason. It's not about how many SBs it's about how many he had chances to win but didn't b/c of his poor play. Dan Marino never had half the talent Peyton had, if he did I'd judge him more harshly but he elevated mediocre talent to postseason in most years. The defense led them there? the same D that allowed the biggest choker iof this generation to lead his O to 32 2nd half pts blowing a 21-6 lead in the title game? Mark was vital to our playoff wins, he wasn't carried anywhere. You need quality QB play to win consistently in January. he gave us that and made huge plays to help us win, the D was a huge part as well but he wasn't carried. Sanchez has never played w/ a pro bowl WR(he played w/ former pro bowlers of which Holmes has never been one) and 3 of his 4 top weapons in 2011 were out of the league in 2012. By the way, you do know Peyton's crappy Ds have allowed less pts in postseason than Brady's great D's, right? that greatest WR was nothing but mediocre for years and no one wanted him. There were rumblings NE was going to release him before the season started. you are entitled to your opinion, you put a premium on meaningless #s w/ elite talent, easy divisions and playing mostly indoors. for me it's about winning and playing your best when it matters most. Peyton is one of the greatest reg season QBs of all time, Brady is a top 5 all time greatest QB.
In 2001-2006 (the years that you are calling Brady a less-than-elite QB), an average of 1.667 QBs reached 30 TDs per year. Less than 2. And only two QBs did it more than once (Manning and Favre). But that is a fair bar to set for Brady, despite not playing in a heavily pass-oriented offense, like Manning, Warner, Favre, etc, and not having elite weapons like them either? The fact that he isn't one of the two best QBs (by that one measure) means he wasn't elite? You can manipulate the numbers all you want, when a QB is universally considered one of the top 3 in the league, and often mentioned in the discussion for #1, he is elite. If you go back to 2006, there was no one arguing that Brady didn't meet those requirements. None of those other QBs that you listed in your TD argument consistently played at the level of Brady, except for arguably Manning. Favre had a lot of yards, but his TD/INT ratio was too much of a disgrace to even call him a "good" QB most of those years, much less "elite". Other guys like Culpepper, Bulger, and Trent Green had their moments, but they all had some pretty bad years mixed in with the good ones. Brady might not have been near the very top statistically every season, but by 2004-2005 his production coupled with his consistency easily put him into the elite category, and that is before you even start considering post-season success.
NFL defenders are much more limited in how physical they can play than they were in that era. It is now much easier to throw TDs and avoid INTs. The numbers around the league reflect that, so it isn't surprising at all that Brady's last 5 years have been among his best. You can say that those numbers knock Brady down to the next "tier" below "elite", but look at them in the context of the other top QBs: TD/INT ratio from 2001-2006: Manning: 2.35 Brady: 1.88 Culpepper: 1.42 Green: 1.39 Favre: 1.37 If Brady wasn't elite, then who was? Are you really going to argue that Manning was the only elite QB in the league over that span of time? If there is another QB I missed who could reasonably be considered a top QB during those years, then feel free to work out the numbers yourself and let me know what you get. I do believe that Brady improved a lot around 2007, but saying he wasn't elite before then just can't be substantiated because it isn't true.
No context matters, but it comes back to number again. They tell the story if you are willing to read them all. You just need to know what to weigh more than others. That's why comparing players from different eras is so difficult, the numbers are harder to relate to each other. So it comes back to what each individual thinks which comes back to opinion. Opinions are shaped and based by what you hear, read, think, like, etc etc. The similarity score is really interesting. It's a great idea they are trying/tried. It seems to be a lot more useful once you basically have the totality of their career since so many players have pieced together a great 2 or 3 seasons. The other interesting thing they have is approximate value, or AV. I'm reading into that now, it's very interesting. I'm not sure of what it entails yet, but it seems like a very adventurous idea. Basketball is different, especially Wilt to Russell in itself, because as a player your can influence the game offensively and defensively. On top of that, Russell could guard Chamberlain and try to stop him, something QBs can't do against each other. Also there is no Special teams in the NBA, another factor QBs can't aren't on the field for. And the whole 1/12 vs 1/53.
It's not only that Brady's past 5 years have been better, they have better in regards to his peers also. That's the key. It's not just that they are better than his past, they are much better than other QBs year in and year out. He is consistently playing at a top 5 QB level the past 5 years in regards to other QBs. I can't say that about him from 01-06. 2002: Brady was 8th in comp %, 6th in yards, 1st in TDs, 8th in TD %, 8th in INT %, 7th in yds/game, and 9th in rating. (47 total) 2003: Brady was 13th in comp %, 6th in yards, 10th in TDs, 12th in TD%, 6th in INT%, 9th in yds/game, and 10th in rating. (52 total) 2004: Brady was 17th in comp %, 10th in yards, 6th in TDs, 6th in TD%, 17th in INT% (#1 being best INT %), 15th in yds/game, 9th in rating. (78) 2005:Brady was 8th in comp%, 1st in yards, 3rd in TDs, 8th in TD%, 17th in INT%, 4th in yds/game, 6th in rating. (47) 2006: Brady was 13th in comp %, 7th in yards, 5th in TDs, 10th in TD%, 8th in INT %, 9th in yds/game, 9th in rating. (61) 2007: Brady was 1st in comp %, 1st in yards, 1st in TDs, 1st in TD%, 3rd in INT%, 1st in yds/game, and 1st in rating. (9) 2008: Injured. 2009: Brady was 7th in comp %, 5th in yards, 6th in TDS, 10th in TD%, 9th in INT%, 7th in yds/game, and 9th in rating. (44) 2010: Brady was 4th in comp %, 8th in yards, 1st in TDs, 1st in TD%, 1st in INT %, 13th in yds/game, and 1st in rating. (29) 2011: Brady was 4th in comp %, 2nd in yards, 4th in TDs, 3rd in TD%, 5th in INT %, 2nd in yds/game, 3rd in rating. (23) 2012: Brady was 11th in comp %, 4th in yards, 4th in TDs, 6th in TD%, 2nd in INT%, 4th in yds/game, 6th in rating. (37) So if we take that final number, lower is better. (I fully understand this is a rough estimate, but this is taking into his account in these stats vs his peers. Lower is better becuase that means he was higher ranked compared to his peers.) This is the ranking by year 2007: 9 2011:23 2010:29 2012:37 2009:44 2002/2005:47 2003:52 2006:61 2004:78 So it's not just his numbers vs his past self being better. It's that plus him becoming better in regards to his peers. Please check my math, I did rush through. And voted to 0 all pro 1st teams pre 2007. voted to one 2nd all pro team in 2005 by 1 out of 3 major voters. Voted to 1st all pro team in 07 and 10 by all 3 major voters. Again, all pro is vs peers not his past self. So yes he was great from 2001-2006, but he was one of the best from 2007 onwards. Slight difference and maybe we just have different definition of elite, great, etc. They are buzz words and subjective, but I guess what I'm saying is for me Brady has been elite since 2007 and was great top 10 from 01-06. If your definition of elite is top 10, which is a completely valid definition, Brady is elite like you said pre 2007. EDIT: And to who then was my "elite" from 2001-2006, I don't feel like doing this for multiple QBs right now so I'll just throw out names that kept on reappering when looking up Brady's stats. Peyton Manning, Favre, Culpepper, Green, Palmer, Brees, Gannon, McNabb, McNair popped up a lot. I couldn't tell you who was top tier in what year, but these few showed up with either one really top class year, or a 2-3 of those years.
