The G.O.A.T.
-
My argument for Brady being abovehis contemporaries is this: Brady IS a stats master.... the guys that are in the contemporary picture with him are Peyton, Favre, Brees, BR. He has the stats and the SB wins and appearances that they all have combined:
Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:
Yards #5
Completions #5
Attempts #6
TDs #5
Rating #5
Yards per game #8
Completion % #12
Lowest Int. % #2
TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers)
And note, the guys that are ahead of him in the all time career stats had/have played longer than he has:
Favre 20 years
Peyton 17 years
Marino 17 years
Only Brees at 12 years is on a better pace than he with some of these stats.
Brady has played 15 years. Give him 17-20 and he will lead most of those guys in the gross statistic department.
(Brees needs 5 SB appearances though to give him the same credence)
Also note: for Postseason play Brady is #1 in attempts/Completions/yards/TDs
-
Can't count? Starr has 5 rings. Or don't you count those before the Super Bowl. What are you? A Steeler fan?
I meant super bowl ring counters, of which I don't prescribe to. It weighs into things, but it is a team game. If your running back fumbles or your safety falls down in coverage you are not automatically a worse QB than the other guy. I take everything into perspective, regular and post season.
Zombo
Zombo said:
I meant super bowl ring counters, of which I don't prescribe to. It weighs into things, but it is a team game. If your running back fumbles or your safety falls down in coverage you are not automatically a worse QB than the other guy. I take everything into perspective, regular and post season.
Zombo
I know that is all true.
That goes back to the whole 1970 QB debate. If Mike Phipps had been taken #1 overall and the Browns had gotten Bradshaw at #3....would it have been Phipps who has 4 Super Bowl rings? Or would the Browns have had a much superior team in the 70s with just Bradshaw. Butterfly effect.
(but see my prior post....I say that Brady's regular season records are pretty every bit as good as Peyton's....and that there is no comparison when it comes to postseason).
-
All time best postseason winning record......4 or more games:
Bart Starr .900
Russell Wilson .857
Sid Luckman .833
Trent Dilfer .833
Jim Plunkett .800
Earl Morral .800
Jeff Hostetler .800
Otto Graham .750
Joe Theisman .750
Tommy Thompson .750
John Unitas .750
Terry Bradshaw .737
Troy Aikman .737
Eli Manning .727
Mark Rypien .714
Tom Brady .714
Other notables:
Joe Montana .696
Elway .667
BR .667
Staubach .647
Brees .545
Rodgers .545
Favre .500
Baugh .500
Marino .444
Kosar .429
Nelsen .400
Testaverde .400 (.500 as member of Browns 1-1)
Frank Ryan .400
Holcomb, McDonald, O'Connell, Plum, Strock, Sipe all .000 (each started and lost 1 playoff game for Browns)
-
Zombo said:
I meant super bowl ring counters, of which I don't prescribe to. It weighs into things, but it is a team game. If your running back fumbles or your safety falls down in coverage you are not automatically a worse QB than the other guy. I take everything into perspective, regular and post season.
Zombo
I know that is all true.
That goes back to the whole 1970 QB debate. If Mike Phipps had been taken #1 overall and the Browns had gotten Bradshaw at #3....would it have been Phipps who has 4 Super Bowl rings? Or would the Browns have had a much superior team in the 70s with just Bradshaw. Butterfly effect.
(but see my prior post....I say that Brady's regular season records are pretty every bit as good as Peyton's....and that there is no comparison when it comes to postseason).
I know that is all true.
That goes back to the whole 1970 QB debate. If Mike Phipps had been taken #1 overall and the Browns had gotten Bradshaw at #3....would it have been Phipps who has 4 Super Bowl rings? Or would the Browns have had a much superior team in the 70s with just Bradshaw. Butterfly effect.
In that scenario, neither wins rings. Phipps woulda sucked wherever and Bradshaw would have been Dan Pastorini without Swann, Stallworth, Harris, Kolb, webster and the Steel Curtain D.
(but see my prior post....I say that Brady's regular season records are pretty every bit as good as Peyton's....and that there is no comparison when it comes to postseason).
Not so fast, my friend, let me visit that.
-
Brady's Ball Sack said:
I can tell that you are either young, or haven't seem some of these players.
I venture that I am probably older than you.
Joe Namath was probably the best of them all, but suffered from injury at a time where there just wasn't the medical technology of today.
Joe Namath was outstanding.....for a very short while....but when we are assessing the GOAT....Joe's short run doesn't cut the mustard.
Nobody had that kind of arm strength in his day.
Bradshaw was pretty close.
Dan Fouts was a monster QB without a D, same for Marino.
But winning still has to count. Neither of them did that. And Marino is being passed in the stats race.
Staback was always clutch.
Probably has as good or better argument than anyone you mention. Started 4 Super Bowls, won 2....in a career that got started late due to military committment.
Lost 2 4 pt. games to Steelers in SBs. Had he won them.....HE would have been the standard that Joe Montana would have had to live up to.
It's hard to rate the best because their legacy is tied to a team sport.
Everybody has said that.
-
I know that is all true.
That goes back to the whole 1970 QB debate. If Mike Phipps had been taken #1 overall and the Browns had gotten Bradshaw at #3....would it have been Phipps who has 4 Super Bowl rings? Or would the Browns have had a much superior team in the 70s with just Bradshaw. Butterfly effect.
In that scenario, neither wins rings. Phipps woulda sucked wherever and Bradshaw would have been Dan Pastorini without Swann, Stallworth, Harris, Kolb, webster and the Steel Curtain D.
(but see my prior post....I say that Brady's regular season records are pretty every bit as good as Peyton's....and that there is no comparison when it comes to postseason).
Not so fast, my friend, let me visit that.
Zombo said:
In that scenario, neither wins rings. Phipps woulda sucked wherever and Bradshaw would have been Dan Pastorini without Swann, Stallworth, Harris, Kolb, webster and the Steel Curtain D.
Maybe. It is sometimes a case of right place right time (or wrong place right time)
Not so fast, my friend, let me visit that.
I did that for you above. Peyton will probably have a bit more ...but not by much...in terms of "volume" stats. Total yds/comps/atts/TDs etc. But he does have 2 years on Brady.....3 if you consider that Brady did not play much his rookie year, where Peyton was a full time starter.
-
Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:
Yards #5 Manning #2
Completions #5 Manning #2
Attempts #6 Manning #2
TDs #5 Manning #1
Rating #5 Manning #3
Yards per game #8 Manning #3
Completion % #12 Manning #4
Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18
TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14
-
Brady's Ball Sack said:
Modern stats?
I don't think the modern QB, protected in the bubble and comfort of todays league rules can be compared fairly.
When comparing the HITS that Montana, Aikman, and Elway et.al had endure, half of these guys playing today would have been out of the league years ago.
Yes....and even those guys were protected compared to the likes of the 70s/60s/50s etc. QBs.
That is why I said to look at dominance within an era, not cross era.
-
Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:
Yards #5 Manning #2
Completions #5 Manning #2
Attempts #6 Manning #2
TDs #5 Manning #1
Rating #5 Manning #3
Yards per game #8 Manning #3
Completion % #12 Manning #4
Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18
TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14
Zombo said:
Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:
Yards #5 Manning #2
Completions #5 Manning #2
Attempts #6 Manning #2
TDs #5 Manning #1
Rating #5 Manning #3
Yards per game #8 Manning #3
Completion % #12 Manning #4
Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18
TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14
Rating, Yards/game, completion % TD% ... not "volume stats"
-
Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:
Yards #5 Manning #2
Completions #5 Manning #2
Attempts #6 Manning #2
TDs #5 Manning #1
Rating #5 Manning #3
Yards per game #8 Manning #3
Completion % #12 Manning #4
Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18
TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14
Zombo said:
Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:
Yards #5 Manning #2
Completions #5 Manning #2
Attempts #6 Manning #2
TDs #5 Manning #1
Rating #5 Manning #3
Yards per game #8 Manning #3
Completion % #12 Manning #4
Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18
TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14
If we did some yearly averages we could possibly compare. I still think Peyton's volume would be more.
Lets try this: Brady has had 13 years as a starter (he only threw 3 passes his rookie year)
Both Brady and Peyton lost a full year to injury (giving Peyton 16 years as a starter)
Peyton's average yards passing per year: 4355.69
Brady's: 4117.53
Peyton's average number of attempts per year: 565,56
Brady's: 551.36
Peyton has Yds. per att. avg of 7.7
Brady's is 7.4
Peyton has a Yds. per completion avg of 11.8
Brady's is 11.7
So they would probably be thisclose when all is said and done if given the same number of years/games.
-
Zombo said:
Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:
Yards #5 Manning #2
Completions #5 Manning #2
Attempts #6 Manning #2
TDs #5 Manning #1
Rating #5 Manning #3
Yards per game #8 Manning #3
Completion % #12 Manning #4
Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18
TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14
Rating, Yards/game, completion % TD% ... not "volume stats"
Zombo said:
Rating, Yards/game, completion % TD% ... not "volume stats"
But they are still like both top 5 all time in those. (and I think ypg is a volume stat)
Championships and championship game appearance may be however.
-
Zombo said:
Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:
Yards #5 Manning #2
Completions #5 Manning #2
Attempts #6 Manning #2
TDs #5 Manning #1
Rating #5 Manning #3
Yards per game #8 Manning #3
Completion % #12 Manning #4
Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18
TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14
If we did some yearly averages we could possibly compare. I still think Peyton's volume would be more.
Lets try this: Brady has had 13 years as a starter (he only threw 3 passes his rookie year)
Both Brady and Peyton lost a full year to injury (giving Peyton 16 years as a starter)
Peyton's average yards passing per year: 4355.69
Brady's: 4117.53
Peyton's average number of attempts per year: 565,56
Brady's: 551.36
Peyton has Yds. per att. avg of 7.7
Brady's is 7.4
Peyton has a Yds. per completion avg of 11.8
Brady's is 11.7
So they would probably be thisclose when all is said and done if given the same number of years/games.
If we did some yearly averages we could possibly compare. I still think Peyton's volume would be more.
Lets try this: Brady has had 13 years as a starter (he only threw 3 passes his rookie year)
Both Brady and Peyton lost a full year to injury (giving Peyton 16 years as a starter)
Peyton's average yards passing per year: 4355.69
Brady's: 4117.53
Peyton's average number of attempts per year: 565,56
Brady's: 551.36
Peyton has Yds. per att. avg of 7.7
Brady's is 7.4
Peyton has a Yds. per completion avg of 11.8
Brady's is 11.7
So they would probably be thisclose when all is said and done if given the same number of years/games.
You can just use per/game stats.
Here's a couple more "volume" stats though
Game winning drives: Manning #1 with 52, Brady #4 with 45
Comebacks: Manning #1 with 41, Brady #4 with 34
and one more key "prorated" stat:
Career sacked %: Manning #1 with 3.07%, Brady #14 with 4.83
-
Zombo said:
Brady stands in these positions all time for each of these stats:
Yards #5 Manning #2
Completions #5 Manning #2
Attempts #6 Manning #2
TDs #5 Manning #1
Rating #5 Manning #3
Yards per game #8 Manning #3
Completion % #12 Manning #4
Lowest Int. % #2 Manning #18
TD% #22 (note.....all of top ten here are pre-1975 QBs except Rodgers) Manning #14
Rating, Yards/game, completion % TD% ... not "volume stats"
Zombo said:
Rating, Yards/game, completion % TD% ... not "volume stats"
Also....if we look at just those particular stats.....Aaron Rodgers leads both Manning and Brady in every single category.
So look out there.
Rating: Rodgers, Romo, Brees each ahead of both
YPG: Stafford and Brees ahead of both
Completion %: Brees, Rodgers, Warner, Pennington ahead of both
TD%: Luckman, Graham, Baugh, Rodgers ahead of both.
-
If we did some yearly averages we could possibly compare. I still think Peyton's volume would be more.
Lets try this: Brady has had 13 years as a starter (he only threw 3 passes his rookie year)
Both Brady and Peyton lost a full year to injury (giving Peyton 16 years as a starter)
Peyton's average yards passing per year: 4355.69
Brady's: 4117.53
Peyton's average number of attempts per year: 565,56
Brady's: 551.36
Peyton has Yds. per att. avg of 7.7
Brady's is 7.4
Peyton has a Yds. per completion avg of 11.8
Brady's is 11.7
So they would probably be thisclose when all is said and done if given the same number of years/games.
You can just use per/game stats.
Here's a couple more "volume" stats though
Game winning drives: Manning #1 with 52, Brady #4 with 45
Comebacks: Manning #1 with 41, Brady #4 with 34
and one more key "prorated" stat:
Career sacked %: Manning #1 with 3.07%, Brady #14 with 4.83
Zombo said:
You can just use per/game stats.
Here's a couple more "volume" stats though
Game winning drives: Manning #1 with 52, Brady #4 with 45
Comebacks: Manning #1 with 41, Brady #4 with 34
With 3 more years under his belt Manning would have that advantage.....but I predict Brady would surpass those numbers with 16 full starter years....as Manning has had. (Brady at only 13)
and one more key "prorated" stat:
Career sacked %: Manning #1 with 3.07%, Brady #14 with 4.83
I also propound that Brady has not had nearly the kind of talent at WR that Manning has had over the years. Harrison/Wayne.
Only for a brief time did Brady have Moss.
And the guys that Denver has had overall have been much better than NEs WRs over the last couple of years.
-
Too many stats and ways to slice it.....how about using Approximate Value(AV) Ratings....they weigh EVERYTHING into account and give a total value score for the players entire career....stats...wins....years played....etc etc....and based upon AV rating....
Peyton Manning and Brett Favre are tied as the 2 most valuable players to EVER play(not just qbs)....after them, the next 8 are...
3) Fran Tarkenton
4) Dan Marino
5) John Elway
6) Tom Brady
7) Drew Brees
Steve Young9) Warren Moon
10) Joe Montana
-
Zombo said:
You can just use per/game stats.
Here's a couple more "volume" stats though
Game winning drives: Manning #1 with 52, Brady #4 with 45
Comebacks: Manning #1 with 41, Brady #4 with 34
With 3 more years under his belt Manning would have that advantage.....but I predict Brady would surpass those numbers with 16 full starter years....as Manning has had. (Brady at only 13)
and one more key "prorated" stat:
Career sacked %: Manning #1 with 3.07%, Brady #14 with 4.83
I also propound that Brady has not had nearly the kind of talent at WR that Manning has had over the years. Harrison/Wayne.
Only for a brief time did Brady have Moss.
And the guys that Denver has had overall have been much better than NEs WRs over the last couple of years.
Zombo said:
You can just use per/game stats.
Here's a couple more "volume" stats though
Game winning drives: Manning #1 with 52, Brady #4 with 45
Comebacks: Manning #1 with 41, Brady #4 with 34
With 3 more years under his belt Manning would have that advantage.....but I predict Brady would surpass those numbers with 16 full starter years....as Manning has had. (Brady at only 13)
and one more key "prorated" stat:
Career sacked %: Manning #1 with 3.07%, Brady #14 with 4.83
I also propound that Brady has not had nearly the kind of talent at WR that Manning has had over the years. Harrison/Wayne.
Only for a brief time did Brady have Moss.
And the guys that Denver has had overall have been much better than NEs WRs over the last couple of years.
I propound that you want to give Brady credit for seasons he hasn't played yet, could get his arm ripped off in the Super Bowl.
I also propound that it is not Manning's fault that Brady didn't start as a rookie.
Manning started and got beat up, his worst statistical year by far ... but he still wins almost every per/game and per/start stat.
Using your Phipps/Bradshaw thing ... what if Manning played his entire career with Belichick ... I think he'd have at least three rings ... but we'll never know.
Zombo
-
Too many stats and ways to slice it.....how about using Approximate Value(AV) Ratings....they weigh EVERYTHING into account and give a total value score for the players entire career....stats...wins....years played....etc etc....and based upon AV rating....
Peyton Manning and Brett Favre are tied as the 2 most valuable players to EVER play(not just qbs)....after them, the next 8 are...
3) Fran Tarkenton
4) Dan Marino
5) John Elway
6) Tom Brady
7) Drew Brees
Steve Young9) Warren Moon
10) Joe Montana
Too many stats and ways to slice it.....how about using Approximate Value(AV) Ratings....they weigh EVERYTHING into account and give a total value score for the players entire career....stats...wins....years played....etc etc....and based upon AV rating....
Peyton Manning and Brett Favre are tied as the 2 most valuable players to EVER play(not just qbs)....after them, the next 8 are...
3) Fran Tarkenton
4) Dan Marino
5) John Elway
6) Tom Brady
7) Drew Brees
Steve Young9) Warren Moon
10) Joe Montana
But the AV stat is also a volume stat. Believe me, I have used it enough times to know that. The longer and more productive a career is the higher that stat will go.
-
Zombo said:
You can just use per/game stats.
Here's a couple more "volume" stats though
Game winning drives: Manning #1 with 52, Brady #4 with 45
Comebacks: Manning #1 with 41, Brady #4 with 34
With 3 more years under his belt Manning would have that advantage.....but I predict Brady would surpass those numbers with 16 full starter years....as Manning has had. (Brady at only 13)
and one more key "prorated" stat:
Career sacked %: Manning #1 with 3.07%, Brady #14 with 4.83
I also propound that Brady has not had nearly the kind of talent at WR that Manning has had over the years. Harrison/Wayne.
Only for a brief time did Brady have Moss.
And the guys that Denver has had overall have been much better than NEs WRs over the last couple of years.
I propound that you want to give Brady credit for seasons he hasn't played yet, could get his arm ripped off in the Super Bowl.
I also propound that it is not Manning's fault that Brady didn't start as a rookie.
Manning started and got beat up, his worst statistical year by far ... but he still wins almost every per/game and per/start stat.
Using your Phipps/Bradshaw thing ... what if Manning played his entire career with Belichick ... I think he'd have at least three rings ... but we'll never know.
Zombo
Zombo said:
I propound that you want to give Brady credit for seasons he hasn't played yet, could get his arm ripped off in the Super Bowl.
I am saying that if they play the same number of seasons...their stats/production would end up being close to the same. (I also "warned" that Rodgers could surpass them both). Yes, it is a projection.
I also propound that it is not Manning's fault that Brady didn't start as a rookie.
Who is assigning fault? Peyton was the #1 overall pick in the draft and was handed the keys to the mint. Brady was #199 overall and had to wrest the starting position away from another #1 overall pick (Bledsoe).
Manning started and got beat up, his worst statistical year by far ... but he still wins almost every per/game and per/start stat.
He doesn't win the winning pct. stat.
Using your Phipps/Bradshaw thing ... what if Manning played his entire career with Belichick ... I think he'd have at least three rings ... but we'll never know.
No, but you know my view......BBs winning is a factor of having Brady, not vise versa.
Zombo
-
Your right. No one would have otto on that list. Four of his "championships" was in the AAFC, that had eight teams two of which were called the Yankees and the Dodgers! LOL. As far as I'm concerned the Super bowl era is where the Championships should be considered worthwhile, not that ancient history bullshit where lineman weighed 220 lbs. Of course if your a "Homer" those "championships" 70 years ago make you pround, go for it!
You are an idiot.
The game say, in the 70s was a lot more like the game played in the 40s/50s than it is to today's game. Ergo, since the game was so different....we MUST discount any titles won in the 70s....per your theory.
You are an idiot.
The game say, in the 70s was a lot more like the game played in the 40s/50s than it is to today's game. Ergo, since the game was so different....we MUST discount any titles won in the 70s....per your theory.
Hi. Basically starting in the super bowl era players were beginning to be bigger, faster and stronger than the previous decades. If thinking those so called "champinships" from 70 years ago make you feel better about the ineptness of our franchise for the last thirty years go for it, no need to get mad. Tell Ergo I said hi!
-
Brady's Ball Sack said:
Modern stats?
I don't think the modern QB, protected in the bubble and comfort of todays league rules can be compared fairly.
When comparing the HITS that Montana, Aikman, and Elway et.al had endure, half of these guys playing today would have been out of the league years ago.
Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Tony Romo, Rodgers, Rivers never dealt with the constant and legal hits after the ball was thrown. Manning would have been in a wheel chair..
Its impossible to say that these guys couldn't take the same hits. I venture that they could just like physically ungifted Bernie kosar did
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login