Tom Brady-The Greatest of His Era, Not All-Time

[LI_Bills]

 

I get what you are saying, its just unfortunately not accurate. QBs before Montana's ERA, during his ERA and even just a bit later than his ERA have played into their later 30's and into their 40's. Guys like Blanda, Moon, Marino, Testaverde, Farve all played during ERA's that took a beating for most their careers. You mention Marino, and he was 39 when he retired and still could have kept playing had he chose to but the Dolphins team was not very good and didn't have a lot of talent on it at that point of his career.

 

Brady is one of the best of all time, and probably the best ever, at using his feet to create time and separation in the pocket to avoid taking hits. His longevity is a function of how mobile he is in the pocket and much he works on his body. Its like Floyd Mayweather...the reason he has lasted so long is his uncanny ability to avoid taking damage and how hard he is too hit. Its very hard to get to Brady because he is so good at avoiding the pressure and getting rid of the ball quickly.

 

Any reference to Blanda deserves major props. I had to look up his stats and was surprised to see he was still throwing passes in his late 30's. I remember him as one of the last non-soccer style kickers. Never saw him throw a pass. Well done.

 

My recollection is that Marino was the king of the quick release and avoided many sacks (not saying he didn't take his beatings). Something Matt Ryan could have benefited from on that fateful 2nd down.

[Augie]

Any reference to Blanda deserves major props. I had to look up his stats and was surprised to see he was still throwing passes in his late 30's. I remember him as one of the last non-soccer style kickers. Never saw him throw a pass. Well done.

 

My recollection is that Marino was the king of the quick release and avoided many sacks (not saying he didn't take his beatings). Something Matt Ryan could have benefited from on that fateful 2nd down.

Blanda threw into his late 30's, but kicked until his early 90's, I think. And that was before the great Brady diet. Remarkable.

 

Marino had a freaky quick release. It wasn't a hit that was his down fall as I remember it. It was a normal drop and a non-contact Achilles tear. Never the same after that.

 

Kelly just had his arm fall off at some point. Not sure if there was a lingering injury or what, but it sure went downhill fast at the end.

[Malazan]

He's not even the greatest of his era. Manning is.

[Alphadawg7]

 

And you didn't account for all the cheating. I wonder if Walsh cheated and secretly taped opponents closed practices? If the league decides to burn the offending tapes instead of bringing that organization to justice?

 

Jerry Rice openly admitted to using illegal stick em on his gloves which is about 1000 times more impactful than alleged ball with slightly less air pressure...so theres that too where there was clear cheating on the way to the greatest career ever as a WR.

 

PS: All teams cheat in any way they can get away with. There is a reason coaches cover their mouths when talking on the headsets because teams hired lip readers with binoculars to steal plays. The cheating list and list of cheaters is a mile long over the NFLs history.

He's not even the greatest of his era. Manning is.

 

Said no one ever.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Alphadawg7

[LI_Bills]

Blanda threw into his late 30's, but kicked until his early 90's, I think. And that was before the great Brady diet. Remarkable.

 

Marino had a freaky quick release. It wasn't a hit that was his down fall as I remember it. It was a normal drop and a non-contact Achilles tear. Never the same after that.

 

Kelly just had his arm fall off at some point. Not sure if there was a lingering injury or what, but it sure went downhill fast at the end.

 

I was trying to point out that Marinos quick release allowed him to prevent sacks...something Matt Ryan could have done to ensure a SB trophy. As I recall Marino got criticized for giving up on plays and throwing the ball away instead of taking a sack cuz he didn't want to get hit. I never bought into that argument.

[ExiledInIllinois]

He wears a headset linked to the sideline.

 

Case closed. He can never be the GOAT. Heck, nobody in this era can. They all cheat and can't do it on their own. It's like using a calculator on an arithmetic test. How can anybody be taken seriously in the tech age?

[Iron Maiden]

He's not even the greatest of his era. Manning is.

 

 

Manning has way too many 1 and done in the playoffs....great regular season QB, but chocked too often in the post season....he's not in the GOAT discussion...it's Brady or Montana....plus Manning had better receivers than Brady did and played in a dome most of his career....if you saw snow coming down, you just knew Manning would have a bad game...Brady thrives in the elements....

[Prickly Pete]

If Tom Brady were drafted in 1984, in a different era, where QB's weren't coddled, there is no way in hell that Brady would be in the shape, 16-17 years into his career that he is today. His body would have broken down at least some and he wouldn't be the player he is right now.

 

Joe Montana was 4-0 in Super Bowls and won 4 in 9 years. If he wasn't injured in the 1990 NFC Championship game against the 49ers, he probably would have been 5-0 with 5 in 10 years.

 

I know people were in a hurry to anoint Brady after the last Super Bowl, but if you take a step back and really look at the thing, there are QB's who have been just as impressive if not more with respect to their era. What would Dan Marino's career have looked like if he was drafted into the NFL in the year 2000?

 

Tom Brady is definitely one of the greatest QB's of all-time and the best of his era, but as far as I am concerned what Montana did in the era he played in was more impressive.

 

Yawn.

[george c]

If Tom Brady were drafted in 1984, in a different era, where QB's weren't coddled, there is no way in hell that Brady would be in the shape, 16-17 years into his career that he is today. His body would have broken down at least some and he wouldn't be the player he is right now.

 

Joe Montana was 4-0 in Super Bowls and won 4 in 9 years. If he wasn't injured in the 1990 NFC Championship game against the 49ers, he probably would have been 5-0 with 5 in 10 years.

 

I know people were in a hurry to anoint Brady after the last Super Bowl, but if you take a step back and really look at the thing, there are QB's who have been just as impressive if not more with respect to their era. What would Dan Marino's career have looked like if he was drafted into the NFL in the year 2000?

 

Tom Brady is definitely one of the greatest QB's of all-time and the best of his era, but as far as I am concerned what Montana did in the era he played in was more impressive.

 

 

Brady is the best of all time, Period... the best, and it's a long, long, long way down to sort out 2nd place.

No one has ever been so effective, and incredible effective on some of the NFL's historically best defensive teams.

He has crushed the NFL since game one, and has played at that level every year like clockwork.

 

 

.

Edited March 15, 2017 by George C

[Mr. WEO]

Like I said, You can't compare eras and just being more emphatic does not change anything.

 

 

You're right, facts and reason can't compete with "well, you just can't, ok?".

He's not even the greatest of his era. Manning is.

 

This isn't even good as sarcasm.

[bobobonators]

agreed he plays in an era were WR can push off, pick and cant get hit, an era QBs are protected fro big hits and below waist etc.

What does that have anything to do with his championships? All teams have the same advantages yet the pats still dominate. Its not just the Pats WR that can push off.

 

Montana played in an era that allowed him to go to the super bowl frequently bc his entire roster stayed intact. He played in an era where there were about 4 good teams.

 

He didnt need rules to protect him from big hits bc his overpaid offensive line prevented that anyway.

 

Im surprised Unitas hasnt been mentioned. (Rolling eyes)

 

Its the same argument in all sports. Player A was better from a different era. No he wasnt. Athletes keep getting faster, bigger, and smarter (with respect to their game). Positions are now specialized. Kids start preparing for their position nowadays since they can practically walk. That didnt exist back then. Information has to be processed faster bc the speed of todays game is faster than it was 30yrs ago. Defenses show more exotic blitzes and coverages today than they did 20-30yrs ago.

 

Brady is the greatest. Lets not be subjective.

[Mr. WEO]

What does that have anything to do with his championships? All teams have the same advantages yet the pats still dominate. Its not just the Pats WR that can push off.

 

Montana played in an era that allowed him to go to the super bowl frequently bc his entire roster stayed intact. He played in an era where there were about 4 good teams.

 

He didnt need rules to protect him from big hits bc his overpaid offensive line prevented that anyway.

 

Im surprised Unitas hasnt been mentioned. (Rolling eyes)

 

Its the same argument in all sports. Player A was better from a different era. No he wasnt. Athletes keep getting faster, bigger, and smarter (with respect to their game). Positions are now specialized. Kids start preparing for their position nowadays since they can practically walk. That didnt exist back then. Information has to be processed faster bc the speed of todays game is faster than it was 30yrs ago. Defenses show more exotic blitzes and coverages today than they did 20-30yrs ago.

 

Brady is the greatest. Lets not be subjective.

 

Great post, but it will all be lost on a lot of the above posters.

 

I don't see Montana lasting 16 years in today's game.

[dave mcbride]

UUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH.

 

Even if Montana won a fifth, 5-2 STILL > 5-0.

 

This whole 'well Brady lost two Super Bowls; Montana didn't lose any' is not only the dumbest football argument I've ever heard, it defies middle school level logic. If you think 4-0 > 5-2 or even 4-2 (Brady was ALREADY the best ever before this past Super Bowl), you are NECESSARILY saying that Montana EARNED points for LOSING three conference championship games. Look, Super Bowl wins count the most, of course. But conference championships are A GOOD THING. They're not this risky proposition that "well you better be careful now that you're in the Super Bowl because if you lose it actually counts against your legacy and you'd have been better off going 6-10 this season." I don't know how else to say it. It's maddening.

+1.

[Augie]

I was trying to point out that Marinos quick release allowed him to prevent sacks...something Matt Ryan could have done to ensure a SB trophy. As I recall Marino got criticized for giving up on plays and throwing the ball away instead of taking a sack cuz he didn't want to get hit. I never bought into that argument.

 

Like Brady, get the ball out fast. As for Ryan throwing the ball away vs taking the sack? I'll side with hand off the damn ball! (I live in Atlanta where a lot of people seemed to know there was a better way.)

[Malazan]

Brady has not done anything without BB. If he was drafted by...say...the Bills..there wouldn't be a conversation. Whatever team drafted Manning was guaranteed a Superbowl regardless of how mismanaged the team was..

[Pirate Angel]

I place him above Montana just because Montana was surrounded by great players, Brady continues to dominate with a less then steller cast of recievers.....God it turns my stomach having to admit these things

[Talley56]

Regarding Montana, Manning was better than Montana. I would also say Elway was. I personally find Montana to be overrated. Great, but overrated. He was surrounded by talent and had one of the best head coaches ever. Elway meanwhile made his coaches look better than they were (pretty clear by now that Mike Shanahan was a mediocre at best HC who benefited from Elway and Terrell Davis).

 

But at this point I would agree that Brady is GOAT.

[hondo in seattle]

What does that have anything to do with his championships? All teams have the same advantages yet the pats still dominate. Its not just the Pats WR that can push off.

 

Montana played in an era that allowed him to go to the super bowl frequently bc his entire roster stayed intact. He played in an era where there were about 4 good teams.

 

He didnt need rules to protect him from big hits bc his overpaid offensive line prevented that anyway.

 

Im surprised Unitas hasnt been mentioned. (Rolling eyes)

 

Its the same argument in all sports. Player A was better from a different era. No he wasnt. Athletes keep getting faster, bigger, and smarter (with respect to their game). Positions are now specialized. Kids start preparing for their position nowadays since they can practically walk. That didnt exist back then. Information has to be processed faster bc the speed of todays game is faster than it was 30yrs ago. Defenses show more exotic blitzes and coverages today than they did 20-30yrs ago.

 

Brady is the greatest. Lets not be subjective.

 

The word "greatest" is already subjective. There's simply no objective way to determine who's the greatest at a position in football. That's why we're arguing about this.

 

Different people are going to value different facts (yards, SBs, etc) differently and different circumstances (eras, quality of receiving corps, etc) differently. That's what makes this necessarily subjective.

 

If forced to choose, I'd probably pick Brady as the GOAT but I do think the era argument has some meat.

Edited March 15, 2017 by hondo in seattle

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

 

Great post, but it will all be lost on a lot of the above posters.

 

I don't see Montana lasting 16 years in today's game.

Could it be that because the supplements Brady consumes now were not available then?

 

 

 

General question

When it comes to Brady* and Manning, which QB did more with less?

[TheElectricCompany]

Brady has not done anything without BB.

20. HYPOTHESIS CONTRARY TO FACT: This fallacy consists of offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future if circumstances or conditions were other than they actually were or are. The fallacy also involves treating hypothetical situations as if they were fact.