Tom Brady vs Drew Brees - GOAT (1 Viewer)

[pape]

Regardless, I'd rather have SBs than records.

Thats why wins and rings count, regardless of what some think. When you boil it down, its all about that W.

 

[Stalwart385]

Thats why wins and rings count, regardless of what some think. When you boil it down, its all about that W.

Then Marino is a sham.

 

[pape]

Then Marino is a sham.

who's career would you rather have - Dan Marino's or Joe Montana's ?

Stats or rings? Its your choice... but its not really a choice at all, is it?

you can put up great numbers, you can make the hall of fame based on numbers... but you will never be in "the conversation" if you dont win

 

[Stalwart385]

who's career would you rather have - Dan Marino's or Joe Montana's ?

Stats or rings? Its your choice... but its not really a choice at all, is it?

you can put up great numbers, you can make the hall of fame based on numbers... but you will never be in "the conversation" if you dont win

This is about the player not the team. Montana was a better player than Marino. He was also on a better team. Brees has been a better player than Brady but Brady has been on a better team.

I would like to have SB instead of stats but that is about the Saints and not about Brees. Do you blame the playoff losses like the Vikings and San Fransico on Brees?

 

[DaveXA]

Then Marino is a sham.

He's not and no one is saying that about him or Brees or anyone else. But, records and rings matter, and they didn't happen in a vacuum. Without Brady, you think Pats win 6 SBs? I think not. With Brees, Marino, and other prolific QBs, it's likely they would. With a lesser qb, not so much.

It's a subjective thing though. Some people put more weight in SBs and wins, others put more stock in stats, while others consider all of the above. Just depends on who you're talking to and what the criteria are.

 

[Stalwart385]

He's not and no one is saying that about him or Brees or anyone else. But, records and rings matter, and they didn't happen in a vacuum. Without Brady, you think Pats win 6 SBs? I think not. With Brees, Marino, and other prolific QBs, it's likely they would. With a lesser qb, not so much.

It's a subjective thing though. Some people put more weight in SBs and wins, others put more stock in stats, while others consider all of the above. Just depends on who you're talking to and what the criteria are.

The problem is that it's all about wins and SBs with Brady. If there was an argument for him being the best QB outside of that I would be more open to it.

I'm not saying Brady isn't a great but I don't see a real argument for GOAT. That should go to the best player at the position.

 

[pape]

Montana was a better player than Marino.

Your statement above negates everything you just said about it all being about the stats.

I would like to have SB instead of stats but that is about the Saints and not about Brees. Do you blame the playoff losses like the Vikings and San Fransico on Brees?

who gets the credit when they win? when they lose? the quarterback. That one guy carries the w/l record in his statistics.

The problem is that it's all about wins and SBs with Brady. If there was an argument for him being the best QB outside of that I would be more open to it.

I'm not saying Brady isn't a great but I don't see a real argument for GOAT. That should go to the best player at the position.

Brady has thrown for over 83,000 yards in his career... Obviously its more than wins and super bowls. But they are part of it... and they should be part of it.

 

[Stalwart385]

Your statement above negates everything you just said about it all being about the stats.


who gets the credit when they win? when they lose? the quarterback. That one guy carries the w/l record in his statistics.

No it doesn't. It isn't just about cumulative stats. Montana was better throw for throw than Marino.

And no the QB does not get the win/loss statistic. The team does.

 

[pape]

No it doesn't. It isn't just about cumulative stats. Montana was better throw for throw than Marino.

Never saw Marino play, did you? Because there is no way you would say that if you had...

 

[Stalwart385]

Never saw Marino play, did you? Because there is no way you would say that if you had...

Yes, all we have to go by is the stats unfortunately. Look up the stats. Montana was better throw for throw. It's not all about stats, context matters, I don't have the luxury with those two though.

 

[HOF_Smeenge]

While it’s fun to discuss, in reality, there is no GOAT, at least as the term implies. “Greatest of All Time” - time hasn’t finished nor has football, so the best you could say is “Greatest at the Present Moment”. It seems to change every decade or so, in the 80s, it was Montana, the 90s it was Aikman briefly then Elway towards the end of the decade, in the 2000s, it was Favre, Manning, and Brady, and 2010s it’s been Brady, Manning, Rodgers, and Brees. In ten years it will probably shift to Mahomes.

Also, you really do have to take team accomplishments like wins and championships out of the equation, there are too many variables, coaches, schemes, schedules, etc to narrow down specific performance of a player as a meaningful indicator. You can even argue stats aren’t the best metric as that also can be tied to other player’s performances. For example, two QBs could have a stat line that reads 50 yard TD pass, but one could be the result of a beautiful rainbow pass that drops into the breadbasket of a receiver in the end zone who had to do nothing but cup his arms to cradle the catch, and the other could be a 2 yard dump off that a receiver or running back breaks a few tackles and makes a great run to get in the end zone. The stat line won’t make the distinction just call it a 50 yard TD.

Now we have to look at every single throw, both complete and incomplete. Were the incompletions good throws that were catchable and just dropped, were the completions all good throws that were on the money or did the receiver have to make adjustments to catch the ball? It really can get granular and ridiculous to attempt to measure, especially over the course of several thousand pass attempts, but that is really the only way if you want to be as precise as possible. Not sure it’s worth it for something that is constantly changing to fit the narrative of the media.
Also notice how retired players are never regarded as best ever (at least by the media)? Favre, Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers a few seasons ago were all in the discussion, but now it’s just Brady, Brees, and Rodgers. It’s because there is no money in talking about players that people can’t pay to go see play. It’s all about hyping the current roster so it’s never about the greatest of all time, but the greatest this season. Just my thoughts on the topic.

 

[pape]

Yes, all we have to go by is the stats unfortunately. Look up the stats. Montana was better throw for throw.

i give up. YOu keep moving the goal posts. stats count for one guy. not for another. but you get the determine the quality of the stat because why?

montana threw half the amount of throws marino made. They played a different game. "better throw for throw" you dont get to base that determination off a number on a stat sheet.

ultimately you makes no sense, and your argument is specious.
Its all stats for one guy but not another? Thats rhetorical, btw.

 

[Stalwart385]

i give up. YOu keep moving the goal posts. stats count for one guy. not for another. but you get the determine the quality of the stat because why?

montana threw half the amount of throws marino made. They played a different game. "better throw for throw" you dont get to base that determination off a number on a stat sheet.

ultimately you makes no sense, and your argument is specious.
Its all stats for one guy but not another? Thats rhetorical, btw.

My goal post has been one thing and one thing only. Wins and SB are a team stat. That is the only argument for Brady as the GOAT.

Efficiency, volume and context all matter, as far as QB play. I value efficiency the most but similar efficiency at higher volume is better. If we can talk about context (like Brady in favorable situations and Brees having the whole team on his shoulders), then it's worth talking about.

You shifted the argument to Montana versus Marino. So that brought up specifics on how I value QB stats. Nothing I said has been inconsistent.

 

[David Robbins]

I hear you, but Tim Couch is a terrible example. He was not a very good qb. A better example would be Dan Marino or Dan Fouts. Probably 2 of the best to never win a SB.

I just used Tim because he was very talented. He played, after being drafted by them, for the Browns. They had a very bad team, and he got beat up. If he had played for the Patriots, or whatever team was great at that time, what "could" he have done? We will never know.

 

[DaveXA]

I just used Tim because he was very talented. He played, after being drafted by them, for the Browns. They had a very bad team, and he got beat up. If he had played for the Patriots, or whatever team was great at that time, what "could" he have done? We will never know.

I don't think he'd be much better anywhere else. Sure, going to the Browns didn't help, but I don't think he does much better anywhere else.

Just fyi, after 5 seasons, he tried to catch on with 2 other teams and was eventually cut by both of them. He just wasn't a very good NFL qb.