Passing is easier now making it easier for lesser wr's to produce bigger numbers. It is hard argument since everything is different now, but to overlook that passing is easier now would be a crime. I also disagree Moss was at the tailend. He wasn't in his prime, but still was a top receiver in 07 and 08 with Cassell. Also Brady's first Super Bowl run was mostly defense. Brady was there and made the plays and should get credit, but the key reasons they won the Super Bowl was due to clutch kicking and great defense. They stopped the greatest show on turf and the defense should get much of the credit. Again not trying to take credit away from Brady as he made the plays needed to win games and win the Super Bowl, but overlooking what that defense did would be a crime
Terrible reading comprehension on your part. I will post my point again when I have time tonight. In the meantime, carefully reread what I wrote.
Brady has had avreage talent on O for his 3 SBs w/ the exception of one great year from Corey Dillon. It's very much like Montana's first 2 SBs. awesome but he had 5 years to turn them around and couldn't then a few years after he left they made a SB run. The Ravens comment isn't about the guys who were on the team just how quickly they built a SB team after he left. Right before he got there they were consistent SB contenders and right after he left. Coincidence? They made the div rd where they got crushed by Pitt. They weren't good to start 1995, I think they were 3-3 or 3-4 when they announced they were leaving. They were 0-2 w/ a different QB. The Pats D played great in the AFC playoffs and through most of the SB BUT they did become the first team to blow a 14 pt 4th qtr lead until Brady rescued them by leading the GW drive in one of the greatest drives in SB history. He wasn't the DC in NE in '96 but he was on staff who set up the K? that D was 0-2 in 2001 w/o Brady nit to mention they ble wa 14 pt lead in the 4th to SL. Yep, they sure did humiliate the man that led an 80 yd TD drive to take a 4 pt lead in the final minutes. NE wouldn't have a single SB win w/o Brady.
It may look good on paper for your argument that they reached the AFCCG in 1989, but the 1991 team he inherited was old and washed up and not a good team. They did not have the the good, young players to take over for those aging guys. And it took more time to rebuild back then than it does now. Yes, it's a coincidence. It took 5 years and two coaches for the Ravens to have a winning record. It didn't happen over night or "right after he left". And they had the advantage of Free Agency to bring in guys like Sam Adams, Tony Siragusa and Rod Woodson.
Who caught the passes? Who ran after the catch? Who kicked the kick? We could argue all day but that defense held the greatest offense on turf to 17 points if I remember the score correctly. Like I said in my original post, I am not taking credit away from Brady as he made plays to win games and win the Super Bowl, but to overlook what the defense did would be a crime. They were 0-2 but defense can change. See in 06 when the Colts defense stepped up in the playoffs.
Is 5 years not long enough to turn around a franchise? yep, it was definitly a longer process back then but 5 years was more than enough time especially in a weak AFC.
They did hold SL to 17 pts and they also blew a 17-3 lead in the 4th qtr and if that game gets to OT and SL wins the toss they likely blow the SB. The Colts D played well enough to win in most postseasons, basically outside of the 41-0 loss to us(you can win giving up 41 but you can't scoring zero) they could have won every other playoff game if the O and peyton played up to their reg season level. Also, as great as those SL O's were they weren't great postseason offenses. TB held them to 11 pts AT SL in 1999 and Ten held them to 23 in their other SB app so it wasn't like they were scoring 35-40 pts. They played great for 3 qtrs and almost blew a historic lead.
That defense also scored 7 points and set up 3 other points. In the scheme of things they directly scored 7 and directly set up 3 and gave up 17. The Pats also had consectuvie 3 and outs which didn't help their D in the fourth. They held a great offense to 17 points and scored 7 for their own team. Have to give them credit
Kind of splitting hairs, but Belichick wasn't the DC with the 1996 Pats. I forget who was, but when Cleveland fired him after 1995, Parcells brought him on the staff as an assistant head coach, but didn't replace the DC he had. When the staff moved to the Jets for 1997 Belichick became the DC, of course after briefly being the "head coach" and Parcells a "consultant" during that whole standoff.
It's amazing to think how the course of history could have changed with one play. Let's assume the tuck rule isn't invented on the spot and the Pats lose that game. So Belli would have been 5-11, 11-5 with a loss in the playoffs and 9-7 missing the playoffs in his 3 years in New England. That's 25 - 23. Would Kraft have given him a 4th season following his record in Cleveland and New England? Maybe he would have but the possibility is there that he doesn't. To answer the OP I still don't think he's the greatest ever but he's not far behind Montana and Elway. He's certainly in the discussion but I don't gauge it on SB rings. Elway was the total package and you look at Montana's playoff numbers and IMO and it's just that he's on another planet and everybody else is playing for second.
They did but games are 4 qtrs long and while they gave them the lead thye took it away too. If Brady doesn't lead that great GW drive there's a good chance they don't win that SB.
If they don't beat oak my guess is they don't go 9-7 in 2002, there was definitely some SB hangover for that team. It's hard to repeat.
Neither did A-Rod having his year in 2007 and the 09 playoffs but it still taints him he was using steroids. Brady didn't need the help, he should have stood up to BB and told him we can win it the right way but he didn't have that confidence in himself to do the right thing.
I don't disagree with what your saying but that's pure speculation and once they get caught, they will have their records tarnished too. Same goes for steroid users, no one last year expected Braun to do what he did but now he is forever tarnished and his NL MVP win is a farce.
I just think you are shortchanging the defense and their accomplishment. If Brady took advantage of the second pick and field position instead of settling for a FG the game might have been over then. That Pats offense also went 3 and out back to back times in the 4th and once after the D forced a punt. Again, I don't think you are giving the defense enough credit especially when the offense scored 14. Great point. Rings can be used more so in basketball when a dominant player is player 1/5 and plays both offense and defense. In football it is much more of a team effort to credit rings to just a quarterback. You can evaluate one's performance when they reach the big stage, but you cannot just credit one individual for reaching and winning.
That D played great for 3 qtrs, they don't give you a trophy for 3 qtrs. W/ the game on the line they fell short and the O came through. As a team it worked perfectly, of their 3 SBs the D played it's best that postseason run but they easily could have blown that SB and they tried 2 years later against Carolina where Brady rescued them again. You can't judge solely on rings but it's part of it especially when Brady has 2 GW drives in Sbs and should have a 3rd if his D didn't blow it vs. NYG. I think if you swicth him and manning the Colts have at least 3 SB titles. As far as Montana(my current #1), he was flawless in SBs but he had some clunker playoff games. Interestingly if you prorate Brady's #s over 23 postseason games(Montana's total) he would have 41 TDs and 20 INTs, Montana had 45 and 21- very similar. Both QBs have also won playoff games while throwing 3 INTs- Montana did it twice.
I am, of course, very biased on this topic, but I don't understand how he wouldn't already be a top-5-all-time lock. He's got the statistics to back it up, the championships... if he quit the game today, he'd already be up there. But overall I think it makes more sense to wait until he's done for good before we try to slot him anywhere. He's still got a few years left and should be productive. His game is not all that physical, it's mental. Of course, that didn't stop this writer from trying to answer the question: http://www.footballnation.com/content/the-top-qbs-all-time-an-in-depth-analysis/11949/
