Board 8 > Any of you don't think tom brady is the greatest QB of all time?

(+) Yeah! (+)

in terms of both peak , and career achievements

---

Hes no Mac Jones but hes close

---

neonreaper posted...

Hes no Mac Jones but hes close

---

All I'm saying is that Eli is 2-0 against Brady in Super Bowls.

---

Aaron Rodgers has a superior arm and accuracy, and his good decision-making has kept his INT rate astronomically low.

However, Rodgers doesn't have the same leadership due to his narcissism. Brady takes pay cuts to build stronger teams (and because his wife makes more money than he does) and is able to rally them around him. This is why, despite him not having the overall best stat sheet, Brady has delivered more championships.

There's also that he cheats - DeflateGate proved that - so... yeah.
---

Brady will never be topped in my lifetime

---

Someone with multiple cheating incidents in their career?

Nah.

---

3 all pro WRs and no TDs today

fucking fraud

---

I feel like people cling to the cheating stuff for an easy way to downplay him when in reality they're barely a speck on his career.

Like, if you've got other reasons for why you feel he's not the best or in the conversation, cool, but if you've gotta lean into "yeah but deflategate," that's kinda telling.

---

You can't really cross-compare people from different eras, especially in a team sport with specialization such as this, due to different rules/systems/medicine/training/etc..., but from his era, I can't say that I have felt that he was the best QB from it.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

I feel like people cling to the cheating stuff for an easy way to downplay him when in reality they're barely a speck on his career.

Like, if you've got other reasons for why you feel he's not the best or in the conversation, cool, but if you've gotta lean into "yeah but deflategate," that's kinda telling.

This would make far more sense if every Brady******* nut hugger didnt literally scream

DA RINGS!!!! About a fucking team sport

Anytime you bring up his numerous advantages and shortcomings.

he's not the best

Mahomes and Rodgers would def have thrown at least one TD today with those Bucs WRs

---

GranzonEx posted...

he's not the best

Mahomes and Rodgers would def have thrown at least one TD today with those Bucs WRs

If Manning, Montana, Marino, Rodgers, or Mahomes got to trade his teams their career they have 10 rings easy. Probably Elway too.

Farve would have about as many, but would have lost some on him being Farve. Although maybe not, because if he trades with him all those picks Farve threw in triple coverage probably get called DPI instead.

ninkendo posted...

Brady will never be topped in my lifetime

if you think he hasn't been already you're not looking close enough



---

StealThisSheen posted...

I feel like people cling to the cheating stuff for an easy way to downplay him when in reality they're barely a speck on his career.

Like, if you've got other reasons for why you feel he's not the best or in the conversation, cool, but if you've gotta lean into "yeah but deflategate," that's kinda telling.

I was being very brief because this isn't exactly a discussion where anyone is going to change their minds and I didn't want to risk getting dragged into a "brady haters going wahhhhhhh" type dialogue that is all too common I find.

The chief argument I see from Brady as GOAT supporters are the 7 championships and I mean... first off there's the whole "Wins really shouldn't be considered a QB stat" thing but that ship has sailed in most sports discussions. But when you look at it from this angle the cheating, uh, actually is pretty damn relevant? Sports media honestly tends to kind of gloss over and have short memories on these kinds of things which is super aggravating to me personally. Like, maybe you didn't mean it this way, but to me what you're saying there is like saying, "Honestly, if you set aside the sign stealing, the Astros' World Series season had barely a speck." Well, okay, yeah, if you're setting aside the actual blemish then I guess most players/careers/seasons of top players look pretty spotless! The only area where cheating actually seems to have stuck to players in any of the major North American sports is the steroid era in Baseball and really only in the HoF voting which is itself a rather weird insiders club type thing.

There's also the fact, to me, that Brady feels like he's been protected/favored by the refs more than pretty much any other player I can think of. He's gotten calls throughout his career that no one else gets - even his opponents in the very game he's getting the calls! Rule changes that favor him when that isn't enough. Like, in basketball you have star calls or homer calls but with Brady he gets them where ever they play and even other top players aren't getting them at that level. It's why things like that blatant OPI in Week 1 against the Cowboys not being called is the kind of thing you just expect (and the media barely talks about if they do at all) because it's just so routine that Brady teams get those things.

Now he's getting the all-time stats records but a lot of those are longevity records. I mean, when Favre held basically all of them it's not like anyone (seriously) thought Favre was the GOAT. He just picked them up because he was an ironman. That Brady is still able to play in the league at his age is legitimately impressive and historic though, no doubt about it, but I mean, of course it's gonna lead to him surpassing these records. If Peyton played to the same age he'd still have them today!

Anyway, that's a lot of me addressing pro-Brady arguments but as for other QBs...

In his era, I never got the feeling he was as "feared" as Peyton. Peyton basically revolutionized QB play with basically be a coach on the field who would just run the offense from the line. Peyton just often had inferior teams around him that he carried. It's reductive as shit, but the Colts that season when Peyton got hurt being atrocious was really telling in that regard, the whole team collapsed without him.

In terms of pure talent you've got Rodgers and Mahomes who I don't think any but the most fanatical Brady supporters would contest that in terms of pure talent they've got Brady beat. Mahomes's career is just starting though so that's a work in progress but he sure seems like he could easily become the GOAT.

And then if you want to go back to rings... well, sure if you put aside the scandals and just go "7 > " then there's no discussion we can have here but you an make a Jordan-esque argument that Montana's undefeated 4-0 is more impressive than Brady's 7-3 in the same way that Jordan's 6-0 is held up as superior to players who have more appearances and somehow Russell being 11-1 doesn't just slam the door on every NBA discussion ever. FTR, I don't buy this kind of argument because it in essence rewards a player for losing before the championship round rather than actually getting there but a lot of people gravitate towards it. So like, if you say Brady's 7-3 record is fully legit then I'd be with you that it's better to have that than 4-0.

also this is petty and not football related but he's just supremely unlikable to me imhotbqh.

---

I think there is always a distinction that needs to be said with debates like this. There is a difference between asking if x player is the most skilled player vs have they had the greatest career.

I think tom brady has undoubtedly had the greatest career of any qb ever.

I think it is more debatable whether he is the best qb in terms of skill to ever play. He's gotta be on the mount rushmore but there are tons of uber skilled qbs who have played in all eras who just didn't have the weapons/championships/longevity that he's had.

---

xp1337 posted...

I was being very brief because this isn't exactly a discussion where anyone is going to change their minds and I didn't want to risk getting dragged into a "brady haters going wahhhhhhh" type dialogue that is all too common I find.

The chief argument I see from Brady as GOAT supporters are the 7 championships and I mean... first off there's the whole "Wins really shouldn't be considered a QB stat" thing but that ship has sailed in most sports discussions. But when you look at it from this angle the cheating, uh, actually is pretty damn relevant? Sports media honestly tends to kind of gloss over and have short memories on these kinds of things which is super aggravating to me personally. Like, maybe you didn't mean it this way, but to me what you're saying there is like saying, "Honestly, if you set aside the sign stealing, the Astros' World Series season had barely a speck." Well, okay, yeah, if you're setting aside the actual blemish then I guess most players/careers/seasons of top players look pretty spotless! The only area where cheating actually seems to have stuck to players in any of the major North American sports is the steroid era in Baseball and really only in the HoF voting which is itself a rather weird insiders club type thing.

There's also the fact, to me, that Brady feels like he's been protected/favored by the refs more than pretty much any other player I can think of. He's gotten calls throughout his career that no one else gets - even his opponents in the very games he's getting the calls! Rule changes that favor him when that isn't enough. Like, in basketball you have star calls or homer calls but with Brady he gets them where ever they play and even other top players aren't getting them at that level. It's why things like that blatant OPI in Week 1 against the Cowboys not being called is the kind of thing you just expect (and the media barely talks about if they do at all) because it's just so routine that Brady teams get those things.

Now he's getting the all-time stats records but a lot of those are longevity records. I mean, when Favre held basically all of them it's not like anyone (seriously) thought Favre was the GOAT. He just picked them up because he was an ironman. That Brady is still able to play in the league at his age is legitimately impressive and historic though, no doubt about it, but I mean, of course it's gonna lead to him surpassing these records. If Peyton played to the same age he'd still have them today!

Anyway, that's a lot of me addressing pro-Brady arguments but as for other QBs...

In his era, I never got the feeling he was as "feared" as Peyton. Peyton basically revolutionized QB play with basically being a coach on the field who would just run the offense from the line. Peyton just often had inferior teams around him that he carried. It's reductive as shit, but the Colts that season when Peyton got hurt being atrocious was really telling in that regard, the whole team collapsed without him.

In terms of pure talent you've got Rodgers and Mahomes who I don't think any but the most fanatical Brady supporters would contest that in terms of pure talent they've got Brady beat. Mahomes's career is just starting though so that's a work in progress but he sure seems like he could easily become the GOAT.

And then if you want to go back to rings... well, sure if you put aside the scandals and just go "7 > " then there's no discussion we can have here but you can make a Jordan-esque argument that Montana's undefeated 4-0 is more impressive than Brady's 7-3 in the same way that Jordan's 6-0 is held up as superior to players who have more appearances and somehow Russell being 11-1 doesn't just slam the door on every NBA discussion ever. FTR, I don't buy this kind of argument because it in essence rewards a player for losing before the championship round rather than actually getting there but a lot of people gravitate towards it. So like, if you say Brady's 7-3 record is fully legit then I'd be with you that it's better to have that than 4-0.

also this is petty and not football related but he's just supremely unlikable to me imhotbqh.

The most annoying thing about that is that basketball is the ONE sport where actually you can win a game on your own. Somehow Russell winning 11 rings as THE GUY doing it is lesser than this clown playing with the best coach AND special teams, AND defensive cast, AND offensive cast of all time in a game where it is 1,000% a team game and you cant win games on your own.

BlueCrystalTear posted...

There's also that he cheats - DeflateGate proved that - so... yeah.

Deflategate proved nothing

"more probable than not that he was "generally aware" of the deflation" is not proof. Not to mention the science in the Wells Report was flawed. That whole incident was a crapshoot

---

MZero posted...

Deflate proved nothing

"more probable than not that he was "generally aware" of the deflation" is not proof. Not to mention the science in the Wells Report was flawed. That whole incident was a crapshoot

Ah yes, remember.

MIT PROVED it.

And of course they are not bias at all.

What does the M in MIT stand for again?

Massachusetts.

Just a fucking coincidence man. Nothing more. I mean sure, every other person who did tests didnt come up with the same thing they did but again; you know, what are the odds and all. Its also been proved he did PEDs, maybe we can get the equally not at all biased Harvard to prove he didnt do those too.

Deflategate stopped having value when they quite literally did better in the second half than the half the balls were deflated in.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Deflategate stopped having value when they quite literally did better in the second half than the half the balls were deflated in.

Except they dont beat the Ravens without deflated balls, as the ball gets batted or picked in the final drive.

They also actually fumble the ball occasionally if they werent cheating with deflated balls.

Bye MWC

---

^A solid way to know you got obliterated in a debate.

No, it's a solid way to know that you literally came crawling back with that account because "i only want this to vote for X in X save my i swear" and that lasted like 20 minutes before you were being the same obnoxious jackass you always are, and there are plenty of people (literally everybody else) worth debating in this topic that aren't you.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Deflategate stopped having value when they quite literally did better in the second half than the half the balls were deflated in.

I've also always really hated this argument - it really minimizes and dismisses cheating IMO.

To again use baseball as an analogue. If a team is illegally stealing signs but the system goes down midway through the game and they just happen to hit better in that half that doesn't erase the intent. They clearly believed it would give them an advantage over time or they wouldn't be cheating to do it. Just because random variance over a short period resulted in it not having the desired effect in a given subset doesn't excuse it and make it all good.

It's super easy to clown on the Colts because of it, sure, but to use it to dismiss what the Patriots did is just wrong IMO.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

No, it's a solid way to know that you literally came crawling back with that account because "i only want this to vote for X in X save my i swear" and that lasted like 20 minutes before you were being the same obnoxious jackass you always are, and there are plenty of people (literally everybody else) worth debating in this topic that aren't you.

Nothing I said there was a jackass at all. Unless you feel quoting actual fumble statistics and pointing out the ball goes faster in the air when its deflated and the Ravens had a play on the ball in the final drive that got by someones finger by micro inches is somehow being a jackass.

The Pats were better than us, with or without (that) cheating. No one denies that. We were just happy to be there. They werent better than the other teams.

Players from nearly every other team admitted they all mess with their balls. Some purposely scuff them up, some heat them up, and so on. "DeflateGate" is such a minor, inconsequential thing and it kind of highlights how people were just so desperate to "gotcha!" Brady on something that happens literally all over the league and has forever.

I'm far from a Brady fan. I just think it actually actively hurts an argument to use DeflateGate as a major reason against him being one of the greatest, because it's an argument that ultimately defeats itself.

---

xp1337 posted...

I've also always really hated this argument - it really minimizes and dismisses cheating IMO.

To again use baseball as an analogue. If a team is illegally stealing signs but the system goes down midway through the game and they just happen to hit better in that half that doesn't erase the intent. They clearly believed it would give them an advantage over time or they wouldn't be cheating to do it. Just because random variance over a short period resulted in it not having the desired effect in a given subset doesn't excuse it and make it all good.

It's super easy to clown on the Colts because of it, sure, but to use it to dismiss what the Patriots did is just wrong IMO.

"The Pats played better in the second half"
"Cheating is cheating!"
"Well why does no one care that Aaron Rodgers literally admitted to over-inflating balls?"
"Over-inflating balls doesn't help!"

---

that 2014 Pats team was actually one of our only stacked SB teams

full rotation of pass rushers, Danny Playoffs and Julian PEDelman with a healthy Gronk and Revis and McCourty in the secondary

probably the most complete Pats team of the decade

---

MooglesRUs posted...

Ah yes, remember.

MIT PROVED it.

And of course they are not bias at all.

What does the M in MIT stand for again?

Massachusetts.

Just a fucking coincidence man. Nothing more. I mean sure, every other person who did tests didnt come up with the same thing they did but again; you know, what are the odds and all. Its also been proved he did PEDs, maybe we can get the equally not at all biased Harvard to prove he didnt do those too.

MIT didn't disprove it, science did. You can do the calculations yourself if you want (also the professor was an Eagles fan from Philly)

---

MZero posted...

"The Pats played better in the second half"
"Cheating is cheating!"
"Well why does no one care that Aaron Rodgers literally admitted to over-inflating balls?"
"Over-inflating balls doesn't help!"

Missing my point entirely is why I didn't want to get too involved with this discussion.

If Rodgers admitted to over-inflating balls past the allowed limit in the rules then yeah that's a problem too. I genuinely wasn't aware of that.

---

Yeah, for everybody saying Rodgers is better, do you equally count the fact that he has their footballs overinflated against him?

I'm not taking away from the idea the Patriots cheated. I'm saying everybody cheats, pretty much everybody has admitted to cheating, and so it ends up an even playing field regardless, which is why DeflateGate in particular is merely a "speck."

---

xp1337 posted...

Missing my point entirely is why I didn't want to get too involved with this discussion.

If Rodgers admitted to over-inflating balls past the allowed limit in the rules then yeah that's a problem too. I genuinely wasn't aware of that.

Rodgers didnt hide it, spoke openly about it, and pointed out many times when hed show the refs they would then deflate them back. But a lot of times theyd let it go and hed be able to play with it. Over inflating doesnt give any advantage, nor more importantly disadvantage to the other team. This is not at all the same thing that happened in the other case where they had a guy specifically being paid by someone else to go and doctor the balls before games to give them a competitive advantage. EVERY other QB in the league wants deflated balls. Only one did it.

To make a good sports comparison.

Rodgers was stealing signs like a normal team does. Which is against the rules, but not cheating.

The DeFlatriots were stealing signs electronically like the Astr*s and Roid Sox (gee, Boston again, this is stunning and totally unexpected I promise) did. Which is patently cheating.

Greatest QB? Nah. He's up there, but I wouldn't say he's the greatest.

Most accomplished? Absolutely. No argument there. But greatest? That's a tough sell for me. Even ignoring the allegations of cheating. A lot of his Super Bowl wins were really close ones. He often had excellent defenses. There were maybe 3 years in which he didn't have a defense that was Top 10 in points allowed. And in those years, he never won a Super Bowl. I feel like New England's defenses don't get the credit they deserve.

A lot of factors as to why he's so accomplished. A weak division (Bills + Jets + Dolphins? Imagine if they put Miami in the AFC South instead of Indianapolis and we got Brady vs Manning twice or thrice a year!) combined with strong defenses combined with the fact that he's a VERY good quarterback. And now he draws talent to play for his new team (which also has a very strong defense) A lot of things went very right for him.

One of the best? Sure. THE best? I don't really agree.

---

I wouldn't call the Bucs a strong defense... and his SB defenses being good came at the expense of his offense. He had Moss for two seasons, and Gronk/Hernadez/Welker for 2 seasons. The rest of the time he was throwing to 7th round QB converted to WR and a whole host of nobodies.

---

GranzonEx posted...

I wouldn't call the Bucs a strong defense... and his SB defenses being good came at the expense of his offense. He had Moss for two seasons, and Gronk/Hernadez/Welker for 2 seasons. The rest of the time he was throwing to 7th round QB converted to WR and a whole host of nobodies.

I mean, not this year so far. (Hopefully they are finally washed up) Theyve been incredible the last 3 years though. They carried Jameis to a .500 record in his 32 INT season I believe. To have to play behind the 8 ball constantly like that and survive is amazing.

I use to be a hater, but that Falcons SB changed my view about him. And he just keeps winning. Hes similar to Kobe. I use to not like Kobe but over time I understood his greatness.

---

Not all-time. In 100 years the killer robot footballers will be better

---

MooglesRUs posted...

Rodgers didnt hide it, spoke openly about it, and pointed out many times when hed show the refs they would then deflate them back. But a lot of times theyd let it go and hed be able to play with it. Over inflating doesnt give any advantage, nor more importantly disadvantage to the other team. This is not at all the same thing that happened in the other case where they had a guy specifically being paid by someone else to go and doctor the balls before games to give them a competitive advantage. EVERY other QB in the league wants deflated balls. Only one did it.

the rule isn't 12.5 PSI or more, the rule is between 12.5 and 13.5. There's an upper limit for a reason. And obviously it does give an advantage or else he wouldn't be doing it. And assuming the Packers practice with them their receivers would be more used to catching them than defenders, so it's harder to intercept for the other team.

MooglesRUs posted...

pointing out the ball goes faster in the air when its deflated

also this is the opposite of true, deflating the ball makes it move slower

---

neonreaper posted...

Hes no Mac Jones but hes close

---

no, he kisses everyone on the lips

---

Peyton has more than double 1st team all pros while having his career shortened by injury. That's too much of gap for me to believe that Brady is better. Brady caught a second win when Peyton retired because when both were playing at a high level the consensus was that Peyton was the best QB while Brady had better team/coaching.

---

Sens-Hangar_18 posted...

Peyton has more than double 1st team all pros while having his career shortened by injury. That's too much of gap for me to believe that Brady is better. Brady caught a second win when Peyton retired because when both were playing at a high level the consensus was that Peyton was the best QB while Brady had better team/coaching.

Peyton had way better weapons than Brady other than 2 years of Randy Moss. Brady had good defenses but that's not getting you All-Pro

---