Is Tom Brady the best to ever play

[litespeedhuskerfan]

boy does that ever sound like a homer, fan boy post. My favorite team has nothing to do with New England. I'm just smart enough to not let the media push their agenda on me about the guy.

And by the way, if Tom had been the qb for my favorite team he wouldn't even be IN THE DISCUSSION of greatest of all time, because he wouldn't be sniffing those rings.

KC is my team, hate the Pats. But I got eyes, and at this point it just isn't debatable anymore, no matter how much I wish it was. I would love nothing more than to make an argument that Montana is the best all time, and I prolly coulda dun that with some conviction before the last Super Bowl. But I can't anymore. Who do you think is the best of all time, and then ask yourself this, would they have won any rings on your favorite team? Prolly not, if you don't think Brady could, whoever you like best wouldn't have either..

 

[Baxter48]

No vote for Brady simple reason he lost two Super Bowls Montana Bradshaw Starr never did especially to a 10-6 giants when they were unbeaten plus IMO I don't think the league is as competitive as it was for mid 1970's to mid 1990's

 

[litespeedhuskerfan]

No vote for Brady simple reason he lost two Super Bowls Montana Bradshaw Starr never did especially to a 10-6 giants when they were unbeaten plus IMO I don't think the league is as competitive as it was for mid 1970's to mid 1990's

Brady is 5-2 in Super Bowls. Ae you really penalizing him for not being 7-0? He's been to SEVEN of them. 5-2 is pretty badass.

 

[Baxter48]

Brady is 5-2 in Super Bowls. Ae you really penalizing him for not being 7-0? He's been to SEVEN of them. 5-2 is pretty badass.

When you compare the greatest teams you look at there records unbeaten first Brady couldn't deliver by beating the 10-6 giants who had lost to the pats earlier plus 3 or 4 regular starters were out because of injuries had Brady been able to go unbeaten I would say yes plus him and his coach have been caught several times cheating

 

[HuskerLLM]

Rings don't lie, this isn't a question or even an argument anymore. Brady is the greatest. No QB has been this dominant for this long, the guy is almost 40 and has no sign of aging. Tom made Bill and Bill made Tom. Neither would have the success they have had without the other.

Wrong, look up Bart Starr's championships. Five NFL championships and two Super Bowls. Seven championships in nine years, that was domination---and by a 17th round pick.

Brady has two more rings to go, oh, and Starr still has the highest playoff QB rating a half of a century later.

 

[ftball95]

pretty easy yes. Deflategate is the biggest joke there is. The NFL had the jets and pats ball with balls at 16 psi in 2015 and I believe the steelers where reported for deflating balls this year and the NFL didn't even investigate. The balls were less than half a psi off of what the cold would have produced and the pressure gauges they used are incredibly variable and the reading you get depends on what eye is domniate for you.

 

[Baxter48]

Wrong, look up Bart Starr's championships. Five NFL championships and two Super Bowls. Seven championships in nine years, that was domination---and by a 17th round pick.

Brady has two more rings to go, oh, and Starr still has the highest playoff QB rating a half of a century later.

Agree 100% plus those guys weren't coddled like the QB's today are

 

[nwualum]

Sorry but I see Brady make throws that make you wonder who he was looking at, even in the last Super Bowl. Is he great? Yes. But he's also the product of having a great coach, defense and offensive line. Let me ask you this-- if you switched team for Brady and Rodgers, do the Packers even make the playoffs? I think no. Rodgers, Montana, etc. routinely make unbelievable throws. I just don't see Brady doing that. Is he top five? Probably. The best? No. If you're looking at only rings, the Pats probably have some lineman in that category as well, but no one is saying they are the greatest of all time. Just my opinion.

 

[HuskerJuice]

Wrong, look up Bart Starr's championships. Five NFL championships and two Super Bowls. Seven championships in nine years, that was domination---and by a 17th round pick.

Brady has two more rings to go, oh, and Starr still has the highest playoff QB rating a half of a century later.

2 Super Bowls compared to 5? I don't know about that. Starr was the 200th overall pick and Brady was 199th, no difference there. Brady beats Starr in completions, accuracy, TD-INT, passing yards (by over 36,000 yards), and passer rating- that's domination. Not to mention there's almost twice as many teams now, and the game is much harder than it was in the 60's.

 

[Chuck003]

is Tom Brady the best. Qb to ever ply he's definitely not the best or even I'm too 5 of all best here is my all time best joe Montana troy aikmen Jim Kelley Dan Marino Peyton manning

Brady, Montana, Unitas, Manning. Whatever order you want to put them in. When all is said and done, most historians will look at Brady as the best ever.

 

[Ohio_husker]

Joe Namath; now no matter what, how can he be higher than a tie. Joe was oft injured ; but he could carry a team.

Joe Namath was 62-67 as a starter.
Brady is 208-61.
I am no big fan of Brady but get real with some of this.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

2 Super Bowls compared to 5? I don't know about that. Starr was the 200th overall pick and Brady was 199th, no difference there. Brady beats Starr in completions, accuracy, TD-INT, passing yards (by over 36,000 yards), and passer rating- that's domination. Not to mention there's almost twice as many teams now, and the game is much harder than it was in the 60's.

League championships. Starr had 7 just like Brady.

 

[jimbosc]

Arguments such as "put Brady on any other team" and he won't be as good can be put the other way. Belichick couldn't get it done as a head coach until he had Brady. Look at his coaching staff in Cleveland - Saban was the DC and Kirk Ferentz was the Oline coach.

Still got run out of town - mostly because without a great QB you can't win consistently in the NFL.

 

[huskerhooligansdotcom]

No vote for Brady simple reason he lost two Super Bowls Montana Bradshaw Starr never did especially to a 10-6 giants when they were unbeaten plus IMO I don't think the league is as competitive as it was for mid 1970's to mid 1990's

It is better to make the Super Bowl and lose then to not make it at all. Going 5-2 is simply better than going 4-0. Montana and Bradshaw still lost games in those other seasons... they weren't good enough to get to the Superbowl and lose there.

I don't like Brady. He went to Michigan. He has the stigma of spygate. He deflated the footballs to gain an advantage.. no question in my mind. Patriots should have lost to the Seahawks and the Falcons if their coaches don't screw it up. He has the huge advantage of having a great coach and defense. He's literally the worst. With all that said.. Brady has the best resume of anyone. It's too bad but to say he doesn't is being dishonest with oneself. They also won this season without their biggest baddest weapon in Gronk. Unfortunately... they do not look to be slowing down either.

 

[HuskerLLM]

2 Super Bowls compared to 5? I don't know about that. Starr was the 200th overall pick and Brady was 199th, no difference there. Brady beats Starr in completions, accuracy, TD-INT, passing yards (by over 36,000 yards), and passer rating- that's domination. Not to mention there's almost twice as many teams now, and the game is much harder than it was in the 60's.

Seven championships by Starr not two

Also, more teams dilutes the talent pool doesn't make it better