Manning: I've already conceded that Manning is right up there with Brady among the top 3 QBs in 2001-2006, so I won't bother saying anything more. Favre: Only surpassed 4000 yards once in 2001-2006, just like Brady. Threw 20 TDs to 29 INTs in 2005 and lost 12 games that seasone. Threw 18 TDs to 18 INTs in 2006. The other years his numbers were better, but still not great. These are not the numbers of a top QB over that span. Culpepper: Only surpassed 4000 yards once, again just like Brady. Threw 14 TDs to 13 INTs in 2001, 18 TDs to 23 INTs in 2002, 6 TDs to 12 INTs in 2005. Only two winning seasons over those six years, and never more than 9 wins. Again, not even close to better than Brady. Green: This is a much better argument, but still falls way short. Green put up yardage totals that were slightly better than Brady's, but his stats are worse in pretty much every other way. His TD totals were frequently in the teens, and only once reached 27 (Brady had 28 twice). His TD/INT ratio was also consistently worse than Brady's as I mentioned in my last post. Carson Palmer: Statistically he might have been better than Brady in 2005-2006, but those are the only years pre-2007 that we can compare them. His rookie year in 2005 was nothing special, but that is to be expected. I've already conceded that Palmer is right up there with Brady in the top 3 QBs. Brees: Shitty year in 2001, shitty year in 2002, shitty year in 2003. 2004-2005 were good years for him, but he didn't stand out compared to Brady in any way. Certainly not enough to make up for the other years. Brady threw for more yards and more TDs in 2004, although his INT total was also higher. Brady threw for more yards, more TDs, and less INTs in 2005. 2006 was the only year where Brees was significantly better, and Brady's best weapon was Reche Caldwell that year. Gannon: Only played two full seasons in the span of time that we are talking about, and those were Brady's first two years starting in the NFL. There is zero chance that Gannon was among the best QBs of that era when he only played a total of 10 games after the 2002 season. McNabb: Never reached 4000 yards in 2001-2006. He only reached 3300 yards once during that time, and only topped 20 TDs twice. His TD/INT ratio was consistently very good, but he just never had the production to even be considered among the top QBs. McNair: Statistically he is just a watered down McNabb. He never even came close to 4000 yards. In fact, he never even reached 3400. His TD high was 24. Without doing any math, it looks like Brady's TD/INT ratio was consistently better too. ... Basically, it is exactly as I have been saying all along. Manning and Brady were at the top, with Carson Palmer being the young challenger. Calling Brady a "top 10" QB and nothing more is insulting. It isn't completely ridiculous to say that Brees was better once he got over his initial struggles, but I still don't see it. And no one else is even close. At worst, that would still leave Brady as the 4th best QB (behind Manning Palmer and Brees), and that is with me being very generous in how much wiggle room I give you. And in case you haven't noticed, I haven't even mentioned Brady's three Super Bowl victories during this span of time. Even if you somehow disagree with my assessments of one or two of those players, that should easily put Brady comfortably over the top. The fact that some of the players you mentioned had one great year that was better than Brady's is irrelevent. We are talking about who is considered an elite QB. "Elite" isn't determined by one good year. If you could even attempt to make a legitimate argument that any of these QBs were better than Brady, then I might listen to you, but instead you just look at the numbers and say "not elite" despite the fact that nobody was clearly better than him, and only two or three QBs were even arguably better. Again, how can somebody who was universally viewed as a top-3 QB at the time (and nobody has disagreed with me yet that this was the case) not be elite during that era?
I specifically said those were names that just appeared a lot and I didn't feel like looking at them like I just did with Brady above. I don't want to do it with any of them, I just said I saw those names when looking up where Brady landed in each of those years. And if you look, Brady was better against his peers these past 5 years than he was the previous years before that. That was something you were focusing on earlier, that the numbers got better because the league got more passer friendly, but in reality it did get more passer friendly but Brady got better leaving a lot of his peers behind, hence his higher ranking overall in the categories above. Hence the all pro teams too. Are you saying Brady was a top 4 QB each year from 2001-2006, or are you saying from 2001-2006, looking now Brady overall was a top 4 QB? Because I'm saying each year he was a top 10 QB from 2002-2006. So his 2002 year placed him in the top 10 QBs for that year. Gannon would be ahead of him for that one year, but if we are then ranking best QBs from 2002-2006, Brady would be ahead of Gannon. I think that's what got lost in translation here. By calling him a top 10 QB, I'm saying he was in the top 10 of QBs at least each year. I'm not saying he was a top 10 QB for the totality of the years. That's why the names like Gannon, Daunte, Brees came up. THey had some really good seasons that would have pushed Brady out of the top 5 for that specific season. Where now we look to 2007 onwards, each year Tom Brady was easily a top 5 QB unless I'm forgetting some QBs. From 2002-2006 he was a top 10 QB each year, meaning each year he would end up in the top 10 QB for that season (2002, 2003, etc). Where as from 2007 onwards, he's been a top 5 (4 or 3 most likely) QB where each from 07 onwards (not 08 obviously) he has been a top 5 QB for that specific year in that era. So Gannon would have had a top tier year in 2002 I think. That we can agree on. Then we can agree on that Gannon is not a top tier QB for 2002-2006? I'm rereading what I quoted from you, and I missed this line "Are you really going to argue that Manning was the only elite QB in the league over that span of time?" That's my bad. My argument, just to explain it more clearly, is that Brady wasn't putting up elite years through 2001-2006. Yes he had some great years. top 10 years at least, but a Gannon or Palmer or Brees pushed him down the list of QBs for a specific season like 2002 or 2006 or 2004 etc etc. Overall, if you take 2001-2006, I 100% see where you are coming from. But if you are doing that, you might as well take 2001-present. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. These QBs are rare so it makes sense over that span of time only a few QBs are going to remain standing. This is why someone like Derek Anderson could have a maybe top 10 year in 2007 and never be heard from again. So for me, I never saw Brady putting up elite seasons consistently from 2001-2006. Bn there on him pushing him outside of the top Qbs for that year. It speaks to his talent and career that we can go back and say he was one of top QBs of 2001-2006, but he wasn't putting up the type of "elite" seasons he is now. That's why in my mind he is an elite QB now, because he is putting elite season after season. That's why he wasn't an elite QB to me from 2002-2006 because he wasn't putting up elite season after season. Gannon should be included as having an elite year in 2002 (Where I'm coming from), but he can't be considered an elite QB from 2001-2006 (the point you were making and I missed). So to round it up, for me overall 2001-2006 Brady was an "elite" QB. But I was talking year to year, and I can't say Brady had elite years then. Maybe one elite year in that bunch. If you then take 2007-2013 you have 3-4 elite years. So while you have some QBs now putting up great seasons, Brady is still putting up better seasons. Where as from 2001-2006, you have QBs putting up great seasons and Brady putting up not as great pushing him down that list for that year . EDIT: If you take these rare QBs that last for as long as Peyton and Brady, you can probably take any 5-6 chunk of their career find out they are the only QB that put up great seasons for that 5-6 year chunk, that's why they are considered all time greats. What for me puts them in that next level, is when in that chunk they are consistently putting up excellent years and going past their peers. So not only are they great for those 5-6 years and hanging around longer than other QBs putting up great seasons, you don't have to look at a chunk of years and say they are the only QB that lasted the 4-5 years. You can just say they were a top 3 QB this year for 4-5 years in a row. That in my mind makes the elite. What makes them great is being able to have great years for 3-5 years that other QBs can't do consistently. What makes the run of those 3-5 years elite for me is when you don't even have to use (look at the last x years, who else has been a great QB for x years). You can just say QB A was better than 30 other QBs the in year 200a, 200b, 200c, 200d, and 200e, that's why they are better. EDIT2: I guess, going back to one of my earlier posts, look at 2010 for Ryan ,Flacco, Cassel, and Freeman. The order could be Ryan, Cassel, Freemn, and Flacco for that year. If you then say let's look at 2010-present, it goes Ryan, Flacco big gappppppppppp Freeman and Cassel. Matt Ryan though, you can just say he was better than Freeman and Cassel in 2010, he was better in 2011, he was better in 2012. That's it. For Flacco, you can' say that, you more go with the longevity. That's where I'm coming from for Brady. For 2001-2006 you can't just say Brady had a better year in 2002, and 2003,and 2004, and 2005, and 2006 than QB x so he's better. You come from, the other QB might have been better in 2002 and 2003, but he fell off and couldn't keep up. In 2007 onwards, you can just say Brady is better in 2007 and 2009 and 2010 and 2011 and 2012 than QB x. THat's why he's better. Hope that makes sense. If it doesn't, I understand, it's something I can explain better in conversation.
You are playing with numbers here, I laid out that 30 TDs was very achievable during this era. Your argument was that 30 TDs didn't apply to the era. I posted numbers proving it did, now you're falling back to "Brady didn't have elite weapons". That's fair enough, but you can't call the guy elite if he wasn't putting up elite numbers. To me, elite means you're a top QB ever year, and you're probably heading to the hall of fame. There are sometimes just one in a season. Due to the uptick in passing stats recently it seems like there might be 3-4 right now. Also, if you're saying Brady needed elite weapons to be great, shouldn't we downgrade his performance when he had Moss and Welker? This is a better duo than Manning ever had. Saying an elite QB from 2001-2006 should have around 30 TDs and 4000 yards every season isn't "Manipulating numbers". So you're basing this on people's opinions back in 2006? Really Brady was overrated back then due to the superbowl wins, which had little to do with him. Manning clearly outplayed Brady from 2001-2006. We're talking about 2001-2006 right? Lets use turnovers rather than just INTs, since just using INTs hides quarterbacks that fumble (which brady did more of early in his career). Here are the numbers: 2001 Farve 32 touchdowns, 21 turnovers Brady: 18 touchdowns, 15 turnovers 2002 Farve 27 touchdowns 20 turnovers Brady: 29 touchdowns, 18 turnovers 2003 Farve 32 touchdowns 23 turnovers Brady 24 touchdowns, 17 turnovers 2004 Farve 30 touchdowns 18 turnovers Brady 28 touchdowns, 19 turnovers 2005 Farve 20 touchdowns 36 turnovers Brady 27 touchdowns, 17 turnovers The bad season for Farve was 2005, but from 2001-2004, if you think Farve was a disgrace then Brady was as well since their turnover to touchdown numbers were similar (and in some cases Farve's was better). Look at Farve's numbers in the 90's, they were better than Brady's early career numbers. I think you're going with the media perception of the two QB's at the time rather than the actual numbers, or facts. Culpepper was really great with Randy Moss. Brady had his breakout year with Moss as well. Just a coincidence? I don't think he was elite (by my definition), but he was getting better every year. By 2007 he cut down on his turnovers (Check the fumbles too) and really became an elite quarterback. It's ironic because he won his superbowls earlier in his career, but I think he got better as time went on (and the talent, scheme and general nfl trends helped as well). It's one of the reasons I think judging a QB by "rings" is stupid. Brady did much more to get his team to the two superbowls he lost, than the ones he won. Had he not won early in his career he would face the bullshit "Choker" argument. If you asked people in 2005 if they could have any active QB as a rookie to start a franchise, I think you would have gotten a few answers before Brady.
I can't believe people are evaluating strictly based on #s, this is how people thought Daunte Culpepper was a big time QB even though he was never close to one. #s tell part of the story, some people will never get that. To pretend like Brady wasn't elite until 2007 is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of.
One of the things that makes it really hard to evaluate Tom Brady properly is that he's gotten more support from his organization than most QB's get. I don't mean that he was given superstar WR's on a regular basis, although he was handed the best WR in the game for several years in his prime. I don't mean that he was handed star RB's, although again he was given a very good one in his early prime when the need arose. What I mean is that the Pats have regularly asked themselves what it is that Brady does best and then they have worked very hard to accommodate those skills and max them out. The Pats offense has been QB-centric to a fault, and some of his success comes from the fact that whatever he needed was provided. When it became very hard to beat the Jets throwing outside the Pats quickly transitioned their offensive flow inside and let Brady live off of slants and seam routes. Earlier on when the middle of the field was the tough place to throw because of people like Ed Reed and Troy Polamalu the Pats went out and got people like Corey Dillon and Randy Moss to bring the safeties up and let Brady make throws outside the numbers. More than any other team in the NFL over the last decade the Pats repeatedly reshaped their talent and playbook to get the most out of their QB. That's one of the reasons Brady is where he is right now. Peyton Manning received similar treatment from the Colts and that's why he's where he's at too. Manning is likely to rewrite the record books. Brady will probably wind up fairly high in those annals as well but he's unlikely to be seen as an all-time great in a couple of decades. He's been great for a long time but outside of a few seasons he hasn't been all-time great. His position in the record books is going to be on the slide almost as soon as he retires.
He had Randy Moss at his peak for ONE year when Tom was completely healthy and randy was not very good prior to going to NE. unlikely to be seen as an all time great in a couple of decades?:rofl2::rofl2: Wow! just wow! you can't make this stuff up, the man who is BY FAR the best QB of hiss generation and already regarded by most as top 5-10 all time will not be seen as an all time great in a couple of decades. I think it is sad that average fans rely so much on #s, especially those average fans that THINK they know what they are watching. I have seen some asinine posts over the years but this one:lol:. Congrats Bradway, I am in amazement.
Lets raise the bar on elite. At what point did we know Tom Brady was going to the hall of fame? If his career ends in 2006, does he go? If so is he in with a "Terry Bradshaw" type career? What about Peyton Manning? Drew Brees? It's a pretty good indicator. If we take the three active QBs we're pretty sure are going to the hall (Manning, Brees, Brady) and throw in the guy who is trending there (Rodgers) you probably have your elite list.
These are great points. I think the Colts drafted really poorly around Manning in his later years. I agree, unless he stays on his current trend and plays until he's 40 (which I think he's talked about) and maybe picks up another superbowl.
yeah, the best QB of this generation w/ the most SB titles and most SB apps need more SBs but the biggest choker of this generation doesn't:lol:
If we are defining "elite" as being among the very best in all of history, then no, maybe Brady didn't achieve that prior to 2007. I do think he would have been in the HOF if his career continued on that same course, even if he didn't win any more SBs, but he probably wouldn't be in the discussion for best ever. But most people use the term "elite" to describe the very best players currently playing any position. By that definition Brady was elite looking at 2001-2006. And my posts were mainly focused on responding to DirtySanchez's assertion that Brady can't be considered for "player of the decade" because he didn't play like an elite QB until 2007. I've demonstrated that Brady was one of the very best QBs from 2001-2006, even if he wasn't at the top every single one of those years. If he was among the very best in the early part of that decade, and we all agree that he was among the very best in the later part of the decade, then it is safe to say he was among the very best for the decade overall. Br4dw4y5ux: Manning's/Brady's career stats (per year): 4249/4066 yards 31.1/30.4 touchdowns 14.9/11.2 interceptions 11.1/12.3 wins Manning's/Brady's stats since 2008 (per year): 4465/4590 yards 32.5/34.3 touchdowns 14.0/9.3 interceptions 12.3/12.3 wins If you look at their career stats, you might say that Manning is marginally better, but it certainly isn't by any huge margin. And remember that Brady's postseason success dwarfs Manning's. If you look at their more recent stats, Brady is better in every measurable way. And that is with me purposely picking a cutoff that leaves out Brady's ridiculous 2007 season. And, once again, it also ignores Brady's five super bowl appearances and three victories, compared to Manning's measly two and one. Explain to me how Manning is an all-time great, but Brady will be forgotten in 20 years? You can't because it isn't true. People like you just get caught up in the idea that Peyton Manning came into the league as an elite prospect and a "natural" talent, and ignore the fact that over time Brady has surpassed him in talent, and even overcome the disparity in stats at the beginning of his career by outplaying Manning in more recent years. At this point, Brady is producing at a higher rate than Manning, and their career stats are already about even.
I wouldn't say manning is better by that. He has more yds, less than 1 more TD but almost 4 more INTs and less wins. Considering he played in a weak division where more than half his games were in domes whatever small edge he has in some categories is negated. Brady is the best, it's not really that close.
He wasn't at the top any of those years, except for statistical flukes (Like Manning sitting). If you want to make the case that his superbowls make up for his above average but not great numbers from 2001-2006 that might be a fair argument. Was he top 5? Probably. Among the best over the whole decade? Sure I can live with that, but mostly due to the fact that his 2007-2010 was exceptional. If he put up 2001-2006 numbers for the rest of the decade, I probably wouldn't think so. Run the numbers again including fumbles. If you really want to have fun, run the 2001-2006 numbers and make a case that Brady was better (he wasn't). I can break down the numbers later, but Manning statistically is better. Brady really cut down on his td to turnover ratio post 2006. It's one of the most impressive things (to me) about the run he's been on. That's mostly circumstance. I think Brady looked better over the whole season during his two losses than during his three wins. I don't think Manning's teams or coaching has been as good as Brady's. It depends on how their careers go. I think Brady may end up holding all time records if he plays until he is 40, and Peyton's Career is winding down (imo) I do think Manning was more talented than Brady, and looking at more recent years Brady has simply had more talent at the skill positions while Manning has had to deal with a neck injury and changing teams. I do think if you took Brady off of the Patriots from 2007-2012 and replaced him with an above average quarterback (Say Romo) the patriots would have had nearly the same level of success. It never felt that way with the Colts and Manning. This is all anecdotal of course.
I'll just leave this here for everyone to vote: http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/9508566/peyton-manning-tom-brady
I will agree Manning is more talented, he grew up learning the game from birth, he's bigger, has a better arm, has better physical tools but he's not the better QB- not even close. You do know that NE was getting worse every year, right? You do know that NE was 5-11 in 2000 and started off 0-2 before Brady rescued them, right? W/o Brady NE doesn't have a SB app let alone 2 wins. switch Brady and manning and NE maybe had 1 SB title while Indy has 3-4. The difference btw the franchises has been the play of the QBs in January.
Peyton will win b/c a)everyone hates Brady and b)average fans are duped into believing Peyton is better b/c of his edge in meaningless fantasy #s. That poll means absolutely nothing.
I'll let everyone else argue about statistics and how to define an "elite" player. To me, the best indicator of greatness in the most important position on the field is wins and losses. There's an element of unfairness to that, I understand. A great player cannot always carry a poor team. But the object of the game is to win, not to throw for a certain number of yards or TDs. I'd also acknowledge that sometimes, a QB just "goes along for the ride" with a great team. But at this point, heading into the 2013 season, Brady is the only remaining player from the '01 and '03 Super Bowl teams, and is joined by only Wilfork from the '04 team. So, point being, with a completely different set of teammates, and many coaching changes along the way, Brady has been the only constant besides Belichick. He's the only common denominator among the players from the '01 team that shocked the Rams to the team that's gotten to the SB and AFCCG the past two seasons, respectively. He's 136-39 (.777) for his career in the regular season. Next highest is Roger Staubach (.746). He's 17-7 career in the playoffs. Most wins by any QB. Unless you want to give Belichick an inordinate amount of credit for all that, then you really can't reach any other conclusions except to say that when it comes to winning football games, no QB has done it better than Brady. And like I said, the object, far as I know, is to win games. He's had some great teams, and he's had some fair teams. And I know the Patriots managed to go 11-5 in his absence in 2008. But if forced to choose, I'll take the guy who's won the most.
as far as Belichick goes he's been a failure w/o Tom Brady. His "system" sure hasn't worked unless he had #12. I believe he'd be aq DC somewhere today if not for Tom. He has developed into a great HC but never would have had the chance if Brady didn't rescue his HC career and the Patriots franchise. BB WITHOUT Brady: 7+ seasons(113 games) 51-62, 45% 1 playoff app 1 playoff win zero div rd wins zero title game apps or wins zero SB apps or wins 2 winning seasons averaged about 7 wins a season BB WITH Brady: almost 11 full seasons(175 games) 136-39, 78% 10 playoff apps 17 playoff wins 7 title game apps 5 SB apps 3 SB wins averages over 12 wins a season
a year after winning 16 and they faced a MUCH easier schedule in 2008 than 2007. Did they make the playoff sin 2008? nope.
Not that my 2 cents matters but I think Brady is better than Peyton and it isn't really close either. You can almost count on Peyton to do dumb shit in the playoffs that he doesn't do in the regular season. And you can't discount their head to head record either. I know, it is a team game. but plenty of times those games went down to the wire and Brady did his job while Peyton choked.
