But the NFC was so good that making the SB was a major accomplishment, the AFC and especially the AFC is such a joke in terms of quality teams it's not even funny. You basically have 4 teams in the AFC... NE, Baltimore, Pitt and whoever Manning is playing for. Montana had to contend with Washington, Chicago, Minnesota (who were pretty good under Jerry Burns and Wade Wilson) Dallas at the beginning of his career, Giants, even the Rams under John Robinson were decent. I'll also say that Brady certainly has the chance to win another, the AFC is a hot mess and outside of the Ravens I don't see anyone who can compete with them. Indy just doesn't have the ability to compete and Pittsburgh is too inconsistent to really be counted on. The only way he doesn't get back is if they get caught cheating for a 3rd time and the NFL actually decides to punish them or he gets injured to the point it ends his career.
It absolutely was a major accomplishment to make the SB out of the NFC. you are going to pump up Minnesota who made 4 PO apps the entire decade of the 80s?(including one at 5-4 in the strike shortened season). The Jets during the Brady era have been much better than the Vikings were in the 80s. the better comparison is the Rams of the 80s but the Jets have still been better in the Brady era. the 80s Rams won 3 PO games, just under Rex we have more. the top teams aren't as strong in the Brady era AFC but the AFC was the dominant conference in the 00s and it wasn't easy facing the top teams they faced in the AFC.
watch the documentary. http://www.49ers.com/news/article-2/A-Football-Life-Bill-Walsh/97e47e1c-c18a-42bb-9eb3-3b95596217a9
Brady reminds me of Jeter(though I think Brady is a better football player than Jeter a baseball player). Both were overshadowed by stat guys- for Jeter it was ARod and for Brady Peyton Manning Both won a lot early in their careers- Jeter 4 in first 5 years, Brady 3 in first 4(as starter) took a while to get that last title and beat a defending champ doing it- Jeter 9 years later and beat defending champ Phillies, Brady 10 years later and beat defending Champ Seattle both are guys that lived bachelor lives for a long time and have stayed out of the media in a negative way
I've always felt that if I wanted to win a skills competition, I'd take Manning; if I wanted to win a crucial game, I'd take Brady
I just don't understand how you can argue Brady as greatest all-time when he is not even clearly the best in his era. If he were better than Peyton, he would have 5 MVPs, not the other way around. And if you asked any GM if they would take absolute prime Brady for a season or absolute prime Rodgers, I bet the majority would take Rodgers. Brady has had the most celebrated career in terms of team success. I don't rank greatest of all-time based on team success, I judge the individual. Brady is in the mix, but these proclamations that the conversation is over or somehow things are decided now that Brady has another ring, are just so silly I don't even know where to begin.
There's a difference between being the best vs. being the most accomplished. Brady is certainly the most accomplished QB of this era and possibly any era of football. Montana is the only real debate there. But he's not the best of all time and possibly not the best of his era (Manning the only real debate there).
What? Jeter had nothing, NOTHING to do with that championship. That was all A-Rod. In fact you need to go back like ten years to find some clutch performance in the playoffs by Jeter, yet he's called "the winner guy". That would be a great comparison if Manning won the title for Brady on Sunday. Brady is now 9 for 12 in situations where he has a chance to take the lead late in a playoff game. And even the SB's where he played poorly and they lost, he still had his team in the lead with 2 mins to go.
for the only time inn his career ARod was great and led the Yanks but to say Jeter did nothing is silly and ARod cost Jeter more chances at titles than he helped win.
Good point, I don't think OP understands that. However, I would argue that Brady is not the most accomplished anyway as individually Peyton surpasses him by almost any measurement. Brady is most accomplished from a team perspective, and arguably, in terms of playoff performance.
except he is clearly the best of his era, it's not even close. MVPs are nice but mostly fantasy #s awards playing on loaded teams mostly in domes. Nothing against Rodgers but any sane GM would take Brady in his prime over Rodgers or anyone lese in this era. It's not possible that Peyton is better b/c he's not. He's a better fantasy QB but if you want to win real games there's no debate. again, anyone can feel Montana or Unitas or even Marino are better and that's ok. I believe Brady is the best, I believe he rescued a sinking franchise and has done more w/ less than any QB in my lifetime. Imagine Peyton trying to get to a title game w/ Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney as his main weapons? imagine him trying to get to a SB w/ Welker or Edelman as his top WR? Brady just won a SB w/ Edleman as his top WR, Brady had Welker as his 3rd or 4th best WR and couldn't even compete in a SB.
Manning has had more talent around him his entire career and has played the majority of his home games in domes to inflate #s. the big thing is where are the great #s when you get to January? his lone SB win he threw 3 TDs and 7 INTs on that run and his D was much better than any of Brady's Ds in a SB run. He's thrown away a SB and not shown up for another, Brady's 2 losses he gave his D's late leads only to watch them blow it. it's no contest btw Brady and Manning.
Just seeing the title of this thread makes me sick to my stomach. He's not the greatest or even in the top 5.
What does Brady do better than Rodgers? Worse arm, less athletic, worse decision-maker in general (as evidenced by being more turnover-prone), more mistakes in clutch situations (numerous 2 and 3 INT playoff games, far more frequent than for Rodgers), etc. Why would any "sane" GM take prime Brady over prime Rodgers? Brady has the edge in longevity and played on better teams and for a better coach. He does not play the position better than Rodgers though. Sorry.
he wins better. we all hate NE and Brady but it doesn't mean we cannot give proper credit. 2 of the best QBs I have ever seen played on 2 of the teams I hate the most- Brady and Marino. I tip my cap to greatness and I haven't seen anyone do it better than Brady has.
He's a nut. During the season he was trying to find negative stats on Aaron Rodgers so he could argue that Mark is better than him. How can you argue with someone like that!
where do you guys make this stuff up? find one example of me writing that. This is what happens, nitwits can't keep up then make things up then other nitwits run w/ it as if I actually said these things.
I'm not going to search for it but I do remember those idiotic anti Aaron Rodgers threads of yours. And comments insinuating that Sanchez was better than Rodgers. You need a shrink if you said that!
