Fezmid Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 With all due respect, using time played is a silly way to gauge whether or not a player is overrated? At what time in a players career is he suddenly ready to be considered worthy of being an excellent player? Is it 3 years, or 5 years or 7 years or 9 years or 11 years? For example, is Manning still overated because he's only played 6 years in the NFL? Of course he's not. He's been properly rated since pretty much day 1 in this league. With the great players you can tell early that they are the real deal. We have all seen the great ones perform as great players early on in their careers and we knew damn well that, barring injury, they'd continue being great players. Brady is clearly one such player. He's bound for greatness and is putting up the stats which clearly will have him as one of the all time greats this league has seen. In fact, he's already got a major leg up on most every QB that has ever played this game because of his super bowl heroics. And his passing stats after 4 years on the job take a back seat to very few QB's that have ever played this game. 77151[/snapback] If you have player A who has played great for 10 years and you have player B who has played great for 3 years, who would you consider the best ever? Obviously it'd player A. The NFL has had so many great players that in order to be considered one of the greatest of all times, you need to sustain the career for a long time. Hell, they're even saying that Terrell Davis isn't a lock for the Hall of Fame because his career was cut short. If Brady breaks his neck this Sunday, he won't go into the Hall of Fame and 20 years from now, nobody will remember much about him. That's the way it goes in sports; without a sustained high level of play, you can't be considered one of the best ever. Brady can be considered one of the best QBs playing now if you want (it's debatable, depending on what qualification you want to look at). But the best ever? He has a ways to go to prove that. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 If you have player A who has played great for 10 years and you have player B who has played great for 3 years, who would you consider the best ever? Obviously it'd player A. The NFL has had so many great players that in order to be considered one of the greatest of all times, you need to sustain the career for a long time. Hell, they're even saying that Terrell Davis isn't a lock for the Hall of Fame because his career was cut short. If Brady breaks his neck this Sunday, he won't go into the Hall of Fame and 20 years from now, nobody will remember much about him. That's the way it goes in sports; without a sustained high level of play, you can't be considered one of the best ever. Brady can be considered one of the best QBs playing now if you want (it's debatable, depending on what qualification you want to look at). But the best ever? He has a ways to go to prove that. CW 77157[/snapback] Clearly I misunderstood your position. I thought you were saying that Brady is underrated as a player because he's not yet proven himself beyond more than just 3 years. But I see that you are talking about Brady being considered one of the all time greats. Of course, 3 years isn't near enough of a track record to classify Brady as one of the all time greats. Having said this however. Brady is clearly on his way to putting up stats and super bowl titles that will no doubt see him at, certainly near the top, of the all time great QB list by the time he's finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 I thought you were saying that Brady is underrated 77172[/snapback] That should read overrated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 If you have player A who has played great for 10 years and you have player B who has played great for 3 years, who would you consider the best ever? Obviously it'd player A. The NFL has had so many great players that in order to be considered one of the greatest of all times, you need to sustain the career for a long time. Hell, they're even saying that Terrell Davis isn't a lock for the Hall of Fame because his career was cut short. If Brady breaks his neck this Sunday, he won't go into the Hall of Fame and 20 years from now, nobody will remember much about him. That's the way it goes in sports; without a sustained high level of play, you can't be considered one of the best ever. Brady can be considered one of the best QBs playing now if you want (it's debatable, depending on what qualification you want to look at). But the best ever? He has a ways to go to prove that. CW 77157[/snapback] Terrell Davis shouldn't be a lock for the Hall of Fame. He had a nice run there with Denver, but it wasn't enough to make him a lock. Now, should he get consideration? Maybe. It's a tough situation to consider, especially when you look at Gale Sayers making the Hall. Davis has a Super Bowl MVP and a 2,000 yard season on his resume, 2 things Sayers never achieved. So, for that reason, he should get some consideration. That doesn't mean he'll get in. I mean, the one Bill I hope (probably more than the others) gets into the Hall is Kent Hull. Does he merit consideration? I think he does for playing here for 10 years and making 3 Pro Bowls. Remember, he had to compete for a Pro Bowl spot with guys like Mosebar in Oakland, Matthews and, later, Stepnoski in Houston/Tennessee, and, of course, Dawson in Pittsburgh. For him to make 3 Pro Bowls with that kind of competition means he must have been very good. If Hull ever makes it in, there is absolutely no doubt that I will go to Canton for his enshrinement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 hes not the best QB in the league, and NOT THE BEST EVER IN THE NFL. 20 strait wins is VERY IMPRESSIVE. but he gets WAY to much credit for it. ----------------- so who is the best QB in the league? Peyton? Brady has beat him 3 times during the 20 game streak. No SB rings Culpepper? Doesn't hurt to have Randy friggin Moss to throw to McNair? What has he done this year. No SB rings. Tom Brady is by far the best QB in the league. The best. And I hate the Pats. 76359[/snapback] When did Brady start playing defense?? I think as a team the Pats are one of the best all time, but Brady on any other team is average, that's my opinion, and I do watch him play alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 but Brady on any other team is average 77341[/snapback] Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 ...Brady on any other team is average... This argument simply makes no sense. The vast majority of NFL teams have more talent at the offensive skill positions and on the OL than do the Pats. If Brady is great on the Pats (and he is), imagine how great he would be if he had Culpepper's OL and Randy Moss. Brady on any other team is likely better than he already is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenews Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 the hardest hit I ever saw was Nate Clements drill Tom Brady at the Ralph a few years ago. They kept replaying it on the JBT. I think in the same game an unconscious Pat reciever retain posession of a pass while laying half out of bounds!!! Those hooded gooblins are sooooo lucky!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts