re: Tom Brady - Five Rings

quote:

---

This is terribly ironic considering your argument is basically "rings".

---

Yep.

Let's set aside the fact that Brady depended on extensive cheating by his coach and just focus on the rings argument.

Is Bradshaw unquestionably better than Roethlisberger and Aikman?

Can Brady really be the GOAT when Starr has the same number of rings in a shorter amount of time (you can't ding Starr for the fact that the NFLCG was the last game for three of his titles)?

If the Tuck Rule hadn't been called the way it was, does that one play mean Brady is no longer the best ever?

quote:

---

Brady's numbers on their own are as good, or nearly as good as anyone else in the argument for GOAT. The five rings pushes him to the front of the pack, IMO.

---

This has been my argument in multiple threads but apparently all they see me post is: "Rings, rings, rings, and more rings!"

The head coach is judged on the amount of wins and championships he produces. His QB is judged on the numbers he puts up as well asthe championships he leads his team to.

And whether you like it or not, that latter metric has been used to judge a QB since championships became a thing in football. It's the reason why no one ever seriously considered Dan Marino as a GOAT candidate because of his failure to win a Super Bowl.

Counter-Argument: But...but...what about Trent Dilfer? He has a Super Bowl ring! Does that mean he's better than Dan Marino, Warren Moon, and Jim Kelly?

No, you assholes! Because as I've said many times before, numbers are an important metric to judge a QB and Dilfer does not have impressive numbers at all. Same thing goes for other Super Bowl QBs like Dilfer, such as Jim McMahon.

Rings are most definitely not everything when it comes to judging a QB and proclaiming him the greatest to ever play. But when you have passed for over 60,000 yards in your career and find yourself in the Top 5 of every major passing statistic used to measure a QB, and you have led your team to 7 Super Bowl appearances and 5 Super Bowl championships - I think that gives you a good argument for GOAT status.

And despite what people might believe from the other thread, greatness can't be measured in Microsoft Excel.

quote:

---

Says people who don't like it when a cherished belief is crushed by facts.

---

Most of those facts I already knew. I knew Brady hadn't thrown for the most yards or touchdowns. I was pretty sure his average yards per pass were on par with other solid QBs in the league. And I sure as hell knew his passer rating wasn't perfect or anywhere close to the best. But you know what? The others included in that spreadsheet suffer from the same problem. There is very little separation between Brees, Rodgers, Manning, and Brady when it comes to numbers. It doesn't take Microsoft Excel to know that.

My argument is, and will always continue to be, that when you have multiple QBs who have similar numbers, you have to take other factors into account. And the simple truth is, Brady has led his team to more Super Bowl wins than the other three "contestants" combined. He also has more wins than any other QB in NFL history.

So when you have a QB who puts up good numbers and wins more championships and more games than anyone else, an argument can easily be made for GOAT status.

The difference is leadership, will to win, the intangibles that the other 3 clearly do not possess!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

---

My argument is, and will always continue to be, that when you have multiple QBs who have similar numbers, you have to take other factors into account.

---

I actually agree with this statement. The disconnect is some of us realize that other factors are thing like the quality of team around him, the quality of his coach and the organization. Things that are beyond his control. You use post hoc cliches to fit a narrative, like "intangibles".

In all honesty I find this notion that we must crown a GOAT foolish. Brady is one of the all time greats there are others.

quote:

---

He's also had lesser talent to throw to on the offensive side of the ball compared to the others. So it evens out.

---

Lol, A) no it doesn't and B) he most certainly does not have lesser talent on offense than Brees and Rodgers have had overall.

Caldwell.

quote:

---

no it doesn't

---

That's your opinion.

quote:

---

he most certainly does not have lesser talent on offense than Brees and Rodgers have had overall

---

That's your opinion.

quote:

---

That good defenses can win championships? Holy shite! I never knew this. What a revelation! I need to re-think my perspective on life.

As an Alabama fan, I am all too aware that great defenses can win you big games. But you still need a QB playing under center who doesn't screw the pooch.

---

But yet you default to titles as a tiebreaker, despite conceding that a huge part of getting those titles has nothing to do with what the QB can control.

Glad we cleared that up.