Rings & GOAT's: should the # of them really be the argument for Brady?

[Success]

As we approach another Brady invitational, I see it more & more on twitter & the boards:  If Brady gets #7, no one will ever touch him, and he will always be the undisputed GOAT.

 

Really?  Football is clearly one of the ultimate team games.  You need 3 phases to win the big one - not to mention some luck along the way, and generally great coaching.  Looking at Brady's rings:  the D really won both Rams games.  And Brady sure didn't get that interception of Wilson at the goal line, or make all of the stops against the Falcons that allowed for a comeback.

 

Brady might get #7, but he also threw 3 picks last week that most QB's wouldn't have gotten away with.  The other team just didn't take advantage.

 

Peyton Manning went through 5 coaches, and played with organizations that generally did not know how to build a balanced team.  Brady had one coach - the GOAT - and they knew how to build the lines and create genuine championship teams.

 

Would Brady have 6 rings if his coach was Caldwell, or McCarthy?  Would Manning have only 2 or Rodgers only 1 if either had BB the whole time?

 

And of course, there is the other argument on rings:  is Dilfer better than Marino?  Is Bradshaw just as good as Montana?

 

And as a Bills fan, it nags me that Kelly would be considered historically higher in the rankings with just 1 ring.  It wasn't Kelly that allowed a 10 minute drive to start the 3rd quarter against the Giants, and he did everything he could to put us in a position to win.

 

I think Brady is the GOAT, but not because of rings.  It's a poor argument.  Not that it should be A factor, but most fans make it THE factor.  This isn't tennis or golf.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Success

[Don Otreply]

Fuh K Brady 

 

He has been caught cheating every four ish years on average  for two decades straight, he lacks the very sportsmanship qualities that are a requirement for such an accolade. He is a walking character flaw. 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Don Otreply

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

HC’s don’t matter for Brady, he just takes them along for the ride. Their are a lot of good HC in the NFL and that is all Brady really needs as far as coaching is concerned. You give Brady a offense with weapons and you can see what he can do with it. Belicheat sucks.

[The Frankish Reich]

Look, i'm as much of a Brady hater as anyone.

But ... 

This is a little like "Clyde Drexler was a better player than Michael Jordan; if you'd put him on the Bulls and Jordan on the Trailblazers, we'd be calling Clyde the GOAT."

[TheFunPolice]

It's crazy, but it just goes to show that rings are what matter in terms of legacy. 

 

Bradshaw has 4 times as many rings as Rogers. Is he 4X better? 

 

Stats are cute, but rings can never be taken away. 

[gjv001]

If the Buc's win, perhaps they should rename the Super Bowl trophy, "The Brady Trophy".

[US Egg]

There is no argument or debate about Brady.

 

Best ever....so far.

[KOKBILLS]

I'm no Tom Brady fan and I hope TB gets pounded tonight by 50.

 

That being said Brady is the GOAT and I really don't think there is any doubt about it whatsoever. 

[NewEra]

Brady is the GOAT in football.  There is no doubt.  
 

Mahomes is coming for him

[TBBills]

Brady is the *Goat

[BfloBillsFan]

If you use winning as your metric, then yes Tom Brady is the GOAT. I don't see that being the best way to evaluate a QB. If you combine in stats  and ability (extending plays, making throws, not being 1 dimensional, having some "wow" factor) then I don't think not Tom.  While I acknowledge Tom also has good stats, I see Rogers or Marino (and can see Mahommes being in the discussion in about 5 years) as the GOATs. Brady has always been in a position to succeed, and has taken advantage of it

Edited February 7, 2021 by BfloBillsFan

[Logic]

I will say that JUST looking at the number of rings alone should not dictate "greatest of all time". As Bruce Exclusive would say, "QB wins are not a stat".

If we're looking at number of rings to decide GOATs, then Charles Haley is the greatest defensive end of all time, since he won five rings. And again, if championship wins are all that matters, Otto Graham won seven championships as QB of the Browns, so he must be the best QB.

That being said...when you combine Brady's Super Bowl trips, rings, AND career statistics, it's hard to argue against him being the best. It greatly pains me to say that, but it's true.

The only way you can reasonably argue for anyone other than Brady is by pointing out the difference in rules across successive eras. If Joe Montana or Dan Marino played in the 2000's NFL, with the way receivers and QBs are protected, what would their numbers and careers look like? 

I, for one, have always held onto Joe Montana as the GOAT, but with each passing year of greatness from Brady -- not to mention seeing him still doing well now that he's separated from Belichick -- it gets harder and harder to deny Tom as the best. 

Now excuse me while I go vomit.

[Billl]

Rings aren’t the end all be all, but they certainly matter.  If Rodgers had 3 and Brady had 5, you could have the discussion.  If Rodgers retires with 1 and Brady retires with 7, you can’t.  If Mahomes wins today, the discussion will start warming up.  If Brady wins, I don’t think Patrick will ever be able to close that gap.

[MJS]

He is clearly, far and away, the GOAT. Nobody is seriously trying to dispute this anymore, are they?

 

You don't have to like him. You don't even have to respect him. But he is the GOAT. It's just a fact.

 

Pointing to poor play when he is in his mid 40's is silly. Of course he isn't as good as he used to be.

[Success]

20 minutes ago, Logic said:

I will say that JUST looking at the number of rings alone should not dictate "greatest of all time". As Bruce Exclusive would say, "QB wins are not a stat".

If we're looking at number of rings to decide GOATs, then Charles Haley is the greatest defensive end of all time, since he won five rings. And again, if championship wins are all that matters, Otto Graham won seven championships as QB of the Browns, so he must be the best QB.

That being said...when you combine Brady's Super Bowl trips, rings, AND career statistics, it's hard to argue against him being the best. It greatly pains me to say that, but it's true.

The only way you can reasonably argue for anyone other than Brady is by pointing out the difference in rules across successive eras. If Joe Montana or Dan Marino played in the 2000's NFL, with the way receivers and QBs are protected, what would their numbers and careers look like? 

I, for one, have always held onto Joe Montana as the GOAT, but with each passing year of greatness from Brady -- not to mention seeing him still doing well now that he's separated from Belichick -- it gets harder and harder to deny Tom as the best. 

Now excuse me while I go vomit.

 

This is very well stated, and I agree w/ all of it.

 

The OP was more a reaction to a clear sentiment on the internet among many that it's all rings, rings, rings, and 7 for Brady would put him out of reach. People were even saying things like "the most Mahomes could get is 5-6, so there is no way he could ever be the GOAT" (paraphrasing some comments I saw).

 

Too narrow a focus. But of course it's part of the evaluation, as is the fact that he took a 2nd team there, in his 40's.  

 

It's hard to dispute he's the GOAT, and I don't.  

 

[Dukestreetking]

2 minutes ago, Success said:

Too narrow a focus. But of course it's part of the evaluation, as is the fact that he took a 2nd team there, in his 40's.  

This.

 

In a frighteningly kinetic sport, he is playing highest level football (the game itself), at the most important position, with a very good (not excellent) season

...at his freaking age.

 

Continual, consistent championship-level/winning play. What else defines hyper-excellence?

 

(And I hate this m'fer)

[Logic]

11 minutes ago, Success said:

 

This is very well stated, and I agree w/ all of it.

 

The OP was more a reaction to a clear sentiment on the internet among many that it's all rings, rings, rings, and 7 for Brady would put him out of reach. People were even saying things like "the most Mahomes could get is 5-6, so there is no way he could ever be the GOAT" (paraphrasing some comments I saw).

 

Too narrow a focus. But of course it's part of the evaluation, as is the fact that he took a 2nd team there, in his 40's.  

 

It's hard to dispute he's the GOAT, and I don't.  

 

As football continues to change, it’s going to be harder and harder to compare players from different eras.

 

The NFL is now an INCREDIBLY pass-happy league, so Mahomes’ stats will likely blow Brady’s out of the water. There’s about to be one additional game per year, as well, and that will skew numbers. 
 

This brings us back to rings as the markers of GOAT status. It’s a fair debate with no clear answer. Jordan vs Lebron is another fine example of the “how much do rings matter?” Conundrum.

[Rico]

Rings are a very important part of being the GOAT. I do tend to compare overall playoff performance to regular season performance, and if there is a drastic difference in big games, that person is not in the conversation of being the very best ever. Sorry Dan Marino, sorry Steve Young, sorry but also congrats to Peyton Gump (Big Game Chump) for making the HOF.

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Rico

[The Frankish Reich]

3 minutes ago, Dukestreetking said:

This.

 

In a frighteningly kinetic sport, he is playing highest level football (the game itself), at the most important position, with a very good (not excellent) season

...at his freaking age.

 

Continual, consistent championship-level/winning play. What else defines hyper-excellence?

 

(And I hate this m'fer)

Just on the objective stats at age 43:

 

- QB Rating: 9th in the NFL

- ANY/A (adjusted net yards per attempt): 8th

- Total passing yards: 3rd

- Sack rate: 3rd

 

I hate that this is happening (Brady on the cusp of winning another SB ring) ... but it is.

We may be entering a new age of increased longevity for QBs with Brady/Rodgers/Rivers all having excellent seasons in their late 30s/early 40s (Brees/Ben on the other hand showing steep declines), so maybe someone catches him some day. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

 

[RobbRiddick]

I still believe you have to separate guys by era. But that's just me. There's no question Brady is the greatest in the salary cap era, as much as I dislike him. Maybe it'll come out one day that he's been using performance enhancing drugs for years or something.

 

For me, the era before this, Montana was the greatest. He won Super Bowls in every way it's possible - blowouts and close games won at the end. He was perfect and never threw a pick (Lewis Billups must have kicked himself until the day he died about that). 

 

Some people say look at the teams Montana had and how easy it was to maintain them. That's true, but I also think the level of competition isn't the same these days, and QBs have it so easy. I mean Brady cries to the ref whenever a defensive player looks at him the wrong way, and usually gets a flag. So I think these things offset.

 

Maybe you tend to go with the guy you grew up watching. People from the generation before mine will often say Jonny U is the greatest.

 

Ask yourself this. Your life is on the line in the biggest game, your team has the ball with 2 minutes left, which QB do you choose? I'd choose Joe Cool. He was perfect in the big games and that can never be changed. 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

It's not just about rings. Those help but Brady checks nearly every box on the GOAT list.

 

Stats- Check

MVP's- Check

Regular Season Wins- Check

Post Season Wins- Check

Super Bowl Wins-Check

Longevity- Check

 

With Brady saying he might play beyond 45 who knows if anyone will ever catch him. The guy is still playing at a top 10 level at 43. 

 

[ProcessTruster]

IMO Brady has a bunch of rings partially bc they won the division and had home field so so many years.   The Pats were most times in the best position to get to the SB , and history shows having byes and home field throughout the playoffs is massive.  Pats only played 4 wild card games in 20 playoff years since 2000, bc they won the division almost every year. 

 

My point is that they manufactured this in large part bc the other AFC East teams were so badly run top to bottom for two decades.   Been watching lots of Bills games from the 2000's and those teams were just so so average.  Jauron, Mularky, Chan, Rex, EJ Manuel, Trent Edwards, Fitz etc etc... just so bad.   So yeah the Pats were well run top to bottom , but the rest of the AFC East has been such an NFL doormat for so long that the Pats had no competition -- they were 5-1 or 6-0 in the Division b4 the season ever started.   

 

Net, net, Brady deserves whatever accolades he gets, no problem  (In fact, I'm hoping he wins one today to (1) get a SB for Arians, who deserves one for what he brings to the game and (2) Bills need a blueprint to follow for beatings the Chiefs) but remember that the rest of the AFC East was equally as badly run as the Pats were well run.   God bless Ralph for keeping the team in WNY but IMO he ran a half-baked, backwater operation full of amateurs for close to two decades as he aged, to the Pats benefit.  

Edited February 7, 2021 by ProcessTruster

[ProcessTruster]

15 minutes ago, ProcessTruster said:

IMO Brady has a bunch of rings partially bc they won the division and had home field so so many years.   The Pats were most times in the best position to get to the SB , and history shows having byes and home field throughout the playoffs is massive.  Pats only played 4 wild card games in 20 playoff years since 2000, bc they won the division almost every year. 

 

My point is that they manufactured this in large part bc the other AFC East teams were so badly run top to bottom for two decades.   Been watching lots of Bills games from the 2000's and those teams were just so so average.  Jauron, Mularky, Chan, Rex, EJ Manuel, Trent Edwards, Fitz etc etc... just so bad.   So yeah the Pats were well run top to bottom , but the rest of the AFC East has been such an NFL doormat for so long that the Pats had no competition -- they were 5-1 or 6-0 in the Division b4 the season ever started.    This is how the 49ers did it in the Rice/Montana years-- the rest of the NFC West was simply not competitive bc of their inability to field a quality operation.  

 

Net, net, Brady deserves whatever accolades he gets, no problem  (In fact, I'm hoping he wins one today to (1) get a SB for Arians, who deserves one for what he brings to the game and (2) Bills need a blueprint to follow for beatings the Chiefs) but remember that the rest of the AFC East was equally as badly run as the Pats were well run.   God bless Ralph for keeping the team in WNY but IMO he ran a half-baked, backwater operation full of amateurs for close to two decades as he aged, to the Pats benefit.  

 

[Ya Digg?]

Rings are definitely part of the discussion, but not the whole discussion. It’s what makes the debate fun (if people are actually allowed to debate things any more without getting offended)-you can make the debate for Manning, Rodgers, Marino, all of these guys, but Brady does have a nice trump card on his side. Let’s be honest, it’s just a lot of bitterness as to why most of us don’t want to say he’s the greatest-maybe not the most talented, but he’s the greatest 

[stinky finger]

I've said before, I'll say again.

 

TB is the most ACCOMPLISHED QB to ever play.

[stinky finger]

1 hour ago, Billl said:

Rings aren’t the end all be all, but they certainly matter.  If Rodgers had 3 and Brady had 5, you could have the discussion.  If Rodgers retires with 1 and Brady retires with 7, you can’t.  If Mahomes wins today, the discussion will start warming up.  If Brady wins, I don’t think Patrick will ever be able to close that gap.

 

Based on your theory, PM needs to get to 4 wins before it "warms up". 

[gobills404]

All I know is that if every QB ever was magically in the same draft I'm for sure not taking Brady first.

[RangerDave]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Just on the objective stats at age 43:

 

- QB Rating: 9th in the NFL

- ANY/A (adjusted net yards per attempt): 8th

- Total passing yards: 3rd

- Sack rate: 3rd

I think this is a good way to separate eras.  How do/did they compare to their contemporaries?

 

I also think there is a difference between the greatest passer of all time and the greatest quarterback of all time.  Quarterback includes being vital to team success, in my opinion.

[Buffalo ill]

Brady is the goat of the modern era.  Obviously if he played in the pre "do not touch the qbs and wrs" era his career would have been much shorter.

 

The more physical game and more primitive medical treatment made everyone break down sooner.

[The Frankish Reich]

49 minutes ago, Buffalo ill said:

Brady is the goat of the modern era.  Obviously if he played in the pre "do not touch the qbs and wrs" era his career would have been much shorter.

 

The more physical game and more primitive medical treatment made everyone break down sooner.

Exactly. No way any QB was going to drop back to throw 10,598 times (Brady's career regular season attempts, not counting sacks) and play till he's 43.

Comparison: Joe Montana threw 5,391 passes. Marino 8,358. This is why QBs are playing at a high level into their late 30s, and in Brady's case, into their mid-40s. And he won't be the last of them to have a 20+ year career as a starting QB.

[TheFunPolice]

By the time a QB was 35 or 36 he was shot in the old days. 

 

Rule changes have added 5 years to guys' careers, and that's good for the game.

 

The difference between rings and stats is that no matter what, nobody can ever take your rings. All these passing records will be gone, especially if the league goes to 17 games. They used to play fewer than 16, which always gets mentioned when talking about guys like Jim Brown and his stats. 

[The Frankish Reich]

20 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

By the time a QB was 35 or 36 he was shot in the old days. 

 

Rule changes have added 5 years to guys' careers, and that's good for the game.

 

The difference between rings and stats is that no matter what, nobody can ever take your rings. All these passing records will be gone, especially if the league goes to 17 games. They used to play fewer than 16, which always gets mentioned when talking about guys like Jim Brown and his stats. 

Not to bring up a difficult issue, but ... that's why OJ's 2003 yards sticks in my memory like Babe Ruth's 60 HRs did.

I think Barry Bonds hit 73* one year, but I'm not positive. I have no idea what the record is now for rushing yards in a season**

 

*performance aided

**16 games

[Success]

24 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

By the time a QB was 35 or 36 he was shot in the old days. 

 

Rule changes have added 5 years to guys' careers, and that's good for the game.

 

The difference between rings and stats is that no matter what, nobody can ever take your rings. All these passing records will be gone, especially if the league goes to 17 games. They used to play fewer than 16, which always gets mentioned when talking about guys like Jim Brown and his stats. 

 

10 years ago, I kept telling my kids, "No worries - Brady has 2-3 more years tops at this level."

 

Deal w/ the devil. He even looks like he's in his 20's.

 

[Brianmoorman4jesus]

For 20 years we took it on the chin from this guy. 20 years, we knew 2 games were automatic losses and our only chance was the wildcard. The guy absolutely made our lives miserable for 2 decades and for that, you always will feel some type of way. Nobody else understands this pain and nobody should hate this guy more then the bills/jets/dolphins fans. We all get that, we all know that.....
 

Tom Brady is the best to ever play the game. Nobody is close and there is no argument. You can hate him. You can hate that he owned us for so long. I get it. I feel it. But at the end of the day, respect the fact that this guy is the best of all time and nobody is close. We will never see anything like this again and as a football fan, you have to appreciate what this guy is. The absolute GOAT...There is nobody close.

[Success]

1 minute ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said:

For 20 years we took it on the chin from this guy. 20 years, we knew 2 games were automatic losses and our only chance was the wildcard. The guy absolutely made our lives miserable for 2 decades and for that, you always will feel some type of way. Nobody else understands this pain and nobody should hate this guy more then the bills/jets/dolphins fans. We all get that, we all know that.....
 

Tom Brady is the best to ever play the game. Nobody is close and there is no argument. You can hate him. You can hate that he owned us for so long. I get it. I feel it. But at the end of the day, respect the fact that this guy is the best of all time and nobody is close. We will never see anything like this again and as a football fan, you have to appreciate what this guy is. The absolute GOAT...There is nobody close.

 

I'm a Bills fan AND a football fan.

 

Rightfully respecting Brady's accomplishments is literally the hardest thing that I do.

 

[BillsDude]

It's only natural that Brady is the GOAT, as his diet seem to made for that. I think he only eats grass, weeds, hay, grains and tree bark. It wouldn't surprise me if he blurts out a out a meh or baa at the line of scrimmage tonight. 

[Figster]

12 hours ago, Success said:

As we approach another Brady invitational, I see it more & more on twitter & the boards:  If Brady gets #7, no one will ever touch him, and he will always be the undisputed GOAT.

 

Really?  Football is clearly one of the ultimate team games.  You need 3 phases to win the big one - not to mention some luck along the way, and generally great coaching.  Looking at Brady's rings:  the D really won both Rams games.  And Brady sure didn't get that interception of Wilson at the goal line, or make all of the stops against the Falcons that allowed for a comeback.

 

Brady might get #7, but he also threw 3 picks last week that most QB's wouldn't have gotten away with.  The other team just didn't take advantage.

 

Peyton Manning went through 5 coaches, and played with organizations that generally did not know how to build a balanced team.  Brady had one coach - the GOAT - and they knew how to build the lines and create genuine championship teams.

 

Would Brady have 6 rings if his coach was Caldwell, or McCarthy?  Would Manning have only 2 or Rodgers only 1 if either had BB the whole time?

 

And of course, there is the other argument on rings:  is Dilfer better than Marino?  Is Bradshaw just as good as Montana?

 

And as a Bills fan, it nags me that Kelly would be considered historically higher in the rankings with just 1 ring.  It wasn't Kelly that allowed a 10 minute drive to start the 3rd quarter against the Giants, and he did everything he could to put us in a position to win.

 

I think Brady is the GOAT, but not because of rings.  It's a poor argument.  Not that it should be A factor, but most fans make it THE factor.  This isn't tennis or golf.

 

 

7 rings is impressive in my humble opinion. Playing big in big games is really what its all about IMO. 

 

It doesn't hurt the argument.

[Greg S]

As a Bills fan I don't like him for all the years he torched the Bills but Brady is the GOAT. He may be the GOAT of all GOATS in all of sports. To do what he is doing at 43 is something we probably won't ever see again.

[LeviF]

The reality is accomplishment is used in GOAT conversations and rightfully so. Look at MJ for example, there were definitely better all around basketball players throughout the years but six rings is huge, even if he never really got it done as the lone great player on a team. And the argument against LeBron is always the lack of rings in an era where his path to the Finals was comparatively easy. There's an eye test too, but accomplishment comes into the conversation.

 

With seven rings and doing it with two teams Brady can be called the GOAT and there won't be that many people that argue otherwise. He passes the eye test as a great football player and fantastic mind for the game. That, combined with the accomplishments, makes his argument an easy one. Is he the best quarterback to ever play? No, and I don't think it's particularly close. But he's won seven rings playing the most important individual position in possibly all of team sports. Can't be ignored.

[Orlando Tim]

I compare him to Barry Bonds in many ways, the numbers don't lie as far as accomplishments in the game, both would virtually undisputed if not for the absurd level of cheating.

To me the fact he and his team has been caught and punished for cheating multiple times will be enough not to ever give him that status. If the cheating does not bother you then I would have a hard time arguing against him.