Texecutioner
Hall of Fame
Double post
Last edited:
Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!
Where Tom Brady rank all time now?
- Thread starter gtexan02
- Start date
Double post
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
I don't have links for this. Rumor was the team went to Lilly and said you have to go to Tom and get Roger starting.
Once Roger started, he pulled a pass into a QB keeper and got a TD to win the game. Legend has it Landry said 'don't ever do that again, you're the starter." You could watch them on the sideline. Only Staubach argued. Everyone else slunk away.
All of which gets to Landry was the greatest coach ever.
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
Haley should be in the HoF.
Showtime100
Got JJ?
Wow. I guess I just assumed he was. Mercy, Bettis is in and Haley isn't.
*******************************************************
Just checked, he was inducted in 2015. Whew, ok, panties unwadded. Carry on.
Montana is undefeated in his SB appearances. So is Bradshaw.
Brady is not.
How can he possibly be the greatest when there are two guys at 4-0 in Super Bowls?
A championship winning pct. of 1.000 is > than a winning pct. of 0.714.
There's a "stat" for you: championship game winning pct. There are two guys better.
PapaL
Loose Screw
IMHO, the game has changed so much over the years that I think you have to break this "greatest" discussion into eras.
Brady is the best of the current era. More rings than any other guy today.
Montana was the best in his era. Four rings in four appearances. He ruled the 80s.
Staubach was the best in his era. He brought mobility to the game.
Starr was the best in his era. Went to six NFL championship games and won five.
To answer the all time question, first you have to tell me how effective those guys would be playing in a different era. That, to me, is the ultimate test if you're talking All-Time Greatest. To me All-Time means the guy would be successful no matter what era you dropped him into. Jim Brown would be a successful RB in today's game or Montana's era or Staubach's era. Rice would be successful in today's game.
Could Brady have won back in Starr's or Unitas' day when QB actually had to call their own plays and no offensive coordinator/head coach whispering in his ear?
Maybe. We'll never know.
But Brady definitely is the best of the bunch today.
Brady is the best of the current era. More rings than any other guy today.
Montana was the best in his era. Four rings in four appearances. He ruled the 80s.
Staubach was the best in his era. He brought mobility to the game.
Starr was the best in his era. Went to six NFL championship games and won five.
To answer the all time question, first you have to tell me how effective those guys would be playing in a different era. That, to me, is the ultimate test if you're talking All-Time Greatest. To me All-Time means the guy would be successful no matter what era you dropped him into. Jim Brown would be a successful RB in today's game or Montana's era or Staubach's era. Rice would be successful in today's game.
Could Brady have won back in Starr's or Unitas' day when QB actually had to call their own plays and no offensive coordinator/head coach whispering in his ear?
Maybe. We'll never know.
But Brady definitely is the best of the bunch today.
Showtime100
Got JJ?
TexansSeminole
Hall of Fame
IMHO, the game has changed so much over the years that I think you have to break this "greatest" discussion into eras.
Brady is the best of the current era. More rings than any other guy today.
Montana was the best in his era. Four rings in four appearances. He ruled the 80s.
Staubach was the best in his era. He brought mobility to the game.
Starr was the best in his era. Went to six NFL championship games and won five.
To answer the all time question, first you have to tell me how effective those guys would be playing in a different era. That, to me, is the ultimate test if you're talking All-Time Greatest. To me All-Time means the guy would be successful no matter what era you dropped him into. Jim Brown would be a successful RB in today's game or Montana's era or Staubach's era. Rice would be successful in today's game.
Could Brady have won back in Starr's or Unitas' day when QB actually had to call their own plays and no offensive coordinator/head coach whispering in his ear?
Maybe. We'll never know.
But Brady definitely is the best of the bunch today.
This is pretty much how I see all the all-time discussions (basketball especially), but it's more fun to make definitive statements.
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
Thx for the update on Haley. Missed that but he deserved it.
Staubach, Brady strike me as any era they would have excelled. Manning, Bradshaw, not so much.
I know tex asked for stats. I can't give them to you. What I can relate to you is when Staubach walked onto the field the score didn’t matter. Everyone, visitor and home, was on needles...'what's Roger going to do?' He was beyond logic and isn't that kind of the definition of GOAT.
Staubach, Brady strike me as any era they would have excelled. Manning, Bradshaw, not so much.
I know tex asked for stats. I can't give them to you. What I can relate to you is when Staubach walked onto the field the score didn’t matter. Everyone, visitor and home, was on needles...'what's Roger going to do?' He was beyond logic and isn't that kind of the definition of GOAT.
WolverineFan
Hall of Fame
Montana is undefeated in his SB appearances. So is Bradshaw.
Brady is not.
How can he possibly be the greatest when there are two guys at 4-0 in Super Bowls?
A championship winning pct. of 1.000 is > than a winning pct. of 0.714.
There's a "stat" for you: championship game winning pct. There are two guys better.
So just to play devil's advocate we're supposed to punish Brady for getting to more SB's because he didn't win all of them?
PapaL
Loose Screw
Texecutioner
Hall of Fame
Montana is undefeated in his SB appearances. So is Bradshaw.
Brady is not.
How can he possibly be the greatest when there are two guys at 4-0 in Super Bowls?
A championship winning pct. of 1.000 is > than a winning pct. of 0.714.
There's a "stat" for you: championship game winning pct. There are two guys better.
Those guys aren't undefeated being that they couldn't get to those SB's that Brady got to. They either didn't make the playoffs or lost in the earlier rounds of the playoffs or they would have made it to those SB's as well. You're trying to act as if going further and winning more games is somehow a knock on a player even though he accomplished more and beat more teams than the other QB's could. Plus, Brady's defense lost those games when the other team had the ball last and Brady's offense had the lead when he walked off the field. You say this as if Brady went to a SB and got completely blown out like Manning or Elway did in some of their SB's.
You look at who won more conference championship games, and that tells the story. Montana and Bradshaw couldn't win those conference championship games and because Brady did win, you are somehow trying to penalize him for going further. Sorry, but there is no logic in that what so ever. Only a total hater would attempt to justify that. Elway isn't regarded as one of the best of all time because he won two SB's. Its because he got his team to 5 SB's and won at least two of them. Brady has almost doubled the amount of times that he got there. You guys just hate the Pats and their accomplishments
Texecutioner
Hall of Fame
It is not devil's advocate. It is an argument that only someone would make out of bitterness and jealousy to suggest that going further in a tournament is somehow worse than losing earlier. The only people that make this argument ever are people that hate the Pats.
Texecutioner
Hall of Fame
He isn't?
Texecutioner
Hall of Fame
Well show us a ton of stats that show that he dominated his position way better than anyone else did with stats and with his rings as well. Otherwise, you're spitting here due to not being able to make the stat based argument for Montana like I told you to attempt.
PapaL
Loose Screw
4-0 100% win is the only stat I need.
Scooter
Funky
What Brady has done is ridiculous, he's at the top of the GOAT conversation. Much like my other posts about 'what would this player be if they weren't crippled by being drafted by the Browns', I wonder what would Brady and Manning be in opposite situations? Manning literally carried one of the worst defenses of all time to a Superbowl win. Horrible line, zero defense, and a fraction of the coaching - yet he put a franchise on his back for a decade. What would Manning do with Belichick compared to what Brady could do with Dungy and Caldwell? I don't presume (it could've been catastrophic for both for all we know), I just find the question its self to be interesting, much like comparing different generations.
Last edited:
Well, full disclosure, I did that just to be devil's advocate. Someone asked for a "con" stat and I offered one up; SB winning pct.
So what's this "punish" stuff??
See my post after this one. I don't think there can be an "All-Time Great" for the NFL or the NBA because both games have changed soooo much over the years.
It's all too subjective. QBs have 10 other guys on their team and face defenses that vary from game to game. Too many parameters that are constantly changing.
Here's a GOAT example that based on fact - no MOFO ever other than Usain Bolt ran a 100M 9.5 - period, end of story, he's the greatest sprinter of all time because he's the fastest ever. And that's a fact. Arguing about Brady & Elway, Montana, whoever is a totally different situation.
Texecutioner
Hall of Fame
You lost bruh. You shouldn't have even responded if you were going to go "full moron.".
Look, your opinion on Brady and the Patriots is far, far from objective. So anyone who says something that isn't pumping Patriot sunshine is blasphemy in your opinion. That's why you use the "hater" tag on anyone with dissenting viewpoints.
You (or somebody) asked for a stat that says he isn't the best ever.
I gave you one.
markn
All Pro
Just as Bonds and Clemens likely cheating will eventually be overlooked by the baseball HoF, Brady's likely cheating will eventually be overlooked by NFL historians. What makes Brady different from the likes of Bonds is that his cheating was completely unnecessary: he's head and shoulders above his peers in terms of ability. He's the best that played the game and the cheating changes nothing. Fortunately for him, most people don't care and his brand remains unblemished.
Sigma
Veteran
to be fair there's a lot of hostility towards NE on this forum, I've seen people call BOB a "patriots cancer"Look, your opinion on Brady and the Patriots is far, far from objective. So anyone who says something that isn't pumping Patriot sunshine is blasphemy in your opinion. That's why you use the "hater" tag on anyone with dissenting viewpoints.
You (or somebody) asked for a stat that says he isn't the best ever.
I gave you one.
I don't really mind since this is a Texans forum and if I wanted to read some enthusiastic stuff about NE I would have gone to the Pats forums, but I definitely had the impression that other teams get slightly less hate around here than the pats
usernameJJ
Waterboy
It's hard not to hate them when they knock you out of the playoffs every year. I have grown to dislike them more and more. And let's face it, the Super Bowl has gone through Foxboro for awhile
This is true. It's like the hate many had (still have?) for Peyton because he beat us down every year.
Having said that, Brady (in Belichick's system) IS the best of the bunch today. No question.
Like Montana and Staubach before him, if he is the QB and there's time on the clock, you think they always have a shot to win.
Montana is undefeated in his SB appearances. So is Bradshaw.
Brady is not.
How can he possibly be the greatest when there are two guys at 4-0 in Super Bowls?
A championship winning pct. of 1.000 is > than a winning pct. of 0.714.
There's a "stat" for you: championship game winning pct. There are two guys better.
I love Montana, but he also lost in the first round of the playoffs several times. Not to mention he had the greatest WR in NFL history for three of his Super Bowls.
powda
The bridge between stupid and useless is short.
Starbucks, Bradshaw, and Montana played in an era without free agency and LESS TEAMS.
The 16 game season didnt happen till 78. Starbuck had 1 year left in his career. Bradshaw was done in 83 having played more then half his career before the extension.
The 16 game season didnt happen till 78. Starbuck had 1 year left in his career. Bradshaw was done in 83 having played more then half his career before the extension.
Last edited:
Okay... but look at who they lost to; Parcells' Giants and Joe Gibbs' Redskins. Are you actually telling me that Brady would have done better than Montana against those teams under 1980's NFL rules? Because that's what "All-Time" means to me. That's why I say you gotta break this into eras.
sometexansfan
Blue Bomber
He only had Rice for 2.
Bulls on Parade
2017 Astros: Earn It!
The real question is will Eli Manning make the Pro Football Hall of Fame?
He beat Tom Brady and the Patriots twice in the Super Bowl (2-0 Super Bowl record).
I think that's going to be enough to get him in regardless of what he does the rest of his career.
Tom Brady has won five Super Bowls but those two Super Bowl losses to the New York Giants still stand out the most to me. Especially when one of those years (2007) he had a 16-0 team, 18-0 leading up to the Super Bowl, with two explosive wide receivers in Randy Moss and Wes Welker. And they could only muster 14 total points in a 17-14 loss in that Super Bowl.
He beat Tom Brady and the Patriots twice in the Super Bowl (2-0 Super Bowl record).
I think that's going to be enough to get him in regardless of what he does the rest of his career.
Tom Brady has won five Super Bowls but those two Super Bowl losses to the New York Giants still stand out the most to me. Especially when one of those years (2007) he had a 16-0 team, 18-0 leading up to the Super Bowl, with two explosive wide receivers in Randy Moss and Wes Welker. And they could only muster 14 total points in a 17-14 loss in that Super Bowl.
Sigma
Veteran
this is hardly a point in favor of Eli
Why are you so sure he wouldn't have?
Aaah.... the old answer a question with a question move. Classic.
Tell me, where did I say, definitively, that he wouldn't have. I said we don't know.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seemed you were dismissing what Brady could do vs Montana for simply not knowing.
And I wasn't trying to pull a move, just asking honestly.
With Bill Walsh as his head coach, Jerry Rice and Dwight Clark as receivers, and Roger Craig carrying the ball?
I never said he'd be better, but I have no doubt that he would have won Super Bowls, as well.
I'm not going down the road of denigrating Joe Montana to make a point. We are talking Lamborghini vs. Ferrari here. These guys are the elite of the elite.
Texecutioner
Hall of Fame
Its been like that in here for years. Big reason why I said a lot in here were choking on crow after the game, because you know good and well they were dying to see the Pats lose, and thought it was over and then they took a huge punch to the nuts and it stung. So many Houston fans have had such loser sports experiences that they start living through other teams they don't like just to beat the teams they hate. Brady could win 4 more SB's, and they'd still be saying the same stuff they said 3 years ago that many are still trying to say today. When you never have faith in your own team every year, it becomes a lot easier to hate the teams that consistently prosper. Brady isn't going anywhere any time soon though, so it will be fun to see which thing they attempt to discredit with next.
Truth is, there's no way of knowing. I said earlier, that guys like Brady, Montana, Staubach, there are others, never think they're out of it as long as there is time on the clock. It's more uncertainty in the way the game has changed than a lack of confidence in Brady's ability or heart.
Texecutioner
Hall of Fame
Its been like that in here for years. Big reason why I said a lot in here were choking on crow after the game, because you know good and well they were dying to see the Pats lose, and thought it was over and then they took a huge punch to the nuts and it stung. So many Houston fans have had such loser sports experiences that they start living through other teams they don't like just to beat the teams they hate. Brady could win 4 more SB's, and they'd still be saying the same stuff they said 3 years ago that many are still trying to say today. When you never have faith in your own team every year, it becomes a lot easier to hate the teams that consistently prosper. Brady isn't going anywhere any time soon though, so it will be fun to see which thing they attempt to discredit with next.
According to this logic Trent Dilfer is better than Brady. He has a 1.000 winning percentage in the big game. Also, Elway, Kelly, Tarkington, Marino, etc are lousy bums and should be thrown out of the HOF. Where does Fouts fit in?Montana is undefeated in his SB appearances. So is Bradshaw.
Brady is not.
How can he possibly be the greatest when there are two guys at 4-0 in Super Bowls?
A championship winning pct. of 1.000 is > than a winning pct. of 0.714.
There's a "stat" for you: championship game winning pct. There are two guys better.
According to this logic Trent Dilfer is better than Brady. He has a 1.000 winning percentage in the big game. Also, Elway, Kelly, Tarkington, Marino, etc are lousy bums and should be thrown out of the HOF. Where does Fouts fit in?
Jack Nicklaus is considered the greatest golfer of all time. The experts say this because he won 18 major championships.
What they don't tell you is how many he lost. Because it doesn't ******* matter.
History measures greatness by achievements, not statistical anomalies or percentages.
Individuals can decide their own metrics for such judgments, but ultimately, the collective will of history looks at total achievements to measure true greatness.
People can try to swim upstream all they want, but that never changes the direction of the river.
Texecutioner
Hall of Fame
None of this really matters when people have blind hatred or a mental blockage for a narrative they don't want to be true. Brady could win 3 more SB's or his team could have never lost a single SB, and the same people that still try to diminish his accomplishments and the difficulty of how he did it will never concede to it. They'd still use that phony era argument or they'd cherry pick some meaningless stat that has pretty much no logic behind it, or they'd say he cheated the entire time. I say let them talk and keep talking. All that does is motivate Brady to play longer and keep going. Hell, if we can get 3 more years of him that will be awesome. I'd love to see another SB appearance with people saying "I'm so tired of this team winning". You are already aware that the Pats will be the most disciplined team in the league scheme wise as long as Brady is there. With all things considered at age 39, this was Brady's best season of his career. Even better than his 50 TD season.
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
Tom Brady and the Patriots are negotiating a contract extension. As I said, Brady is an exception to their 'get rid of them when they become expensive but still have value' policy. He is signed thru 2019 now.
Texecutioner
Hall of Fame
I sure hope that means they're trading Jimmy G then. I wonder if Brady is going to take even less again.
Brady/Montana/Elway/Staubach are/ were the best with the game on the line.
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
I'd think that means a trade is very likely.
Brady kind of took less. What he really did was take huge money upfront as a roster bonus so it hit later years less (with a big benefit for him being he got it early free to invest).