Is Tom Brady the best QB ever?

Guy, you say that but it looks like you did rank in order?

Bro, what can I say? They're not in any sort of order, I just wrote them down as they popped in my head.

Bro, what can I say? They're not in any sort of order, I just wrote them down as they popped in my head.Hahahaha.

Oh god...

And you can not say that Brady is the best QB in the NFL simply because his team accomplished the ultimate goal. You can use it in your argument, but by itself is simply a terrible application of cause and effect.

Look I agree that the best QB ever debate will never really go anywhere, but the Brady V Manning debate is a really good one. I don't and never did state Brady is the best QB in the NFL simply because his team accomplished the ultimate goal.

There are plenty more arguments that have been made, but I have to go somewhere and this will have to continue later.

Here is one of those arguments. Brady has made at least three average receivers that played for the Pats and left very very rich and when they leave his guidance they are back to what they were all along. Average. Givens, Branch and Patten. Look at Caldwell. He is average at best and Brady made him look much better than that. He makes players around him better. Tom Brady won three titles with an average offense. Yes a big part of the Pats is the coach and the D, but nonethless Brady wins with less firepower. I remind you this is only one of many arguements so don't give me this Brady won some rings big deal is that all you got assessment.

Look I agree that the best QB ever debate will never really go anywhere, but the Brady V Manning debate is a really good one. I don't and never did state Brady is the best QB in the NFL simply because his team accomplished the ultimate goal.

There are plenty more arguments that have been made, but I have to go somewhere and this will have to continue later.

Here is one of those arguments. Brady has made at least three average receivers that played for the Pats and left very very rich and when they leave his guidance they are back to what they were all along. Average. Givens, Branch and Patten. Look at Caldwell. He is average at best and Brady made him look much better than that. He makes players around him better. Tom Brady won three titles with an average offense. Yes a big part of the Pats is the coach and the D, but nonethless Brady wins with less firepower. I remind you this is only one of many arguements so don't give me this Brady won some rings big deal is that all you got assessment.Perhaps one of the reasons that the debate never went anywhere is because no one ever moved past the ridiculous rings argument. And this was hardly ever your issue, because you do seem like a person (as most of us are) with legitimate responsibilities that take far more importance over mindless internet bickering. So maybe that's why the Manning v Brady debate never got past the "rings" sillyness.

I've been re reading the old "Iceman" thread, and I must say that it's possible that my message have had some effect on the general Warpath populus because the arguments for Brady in this thread are 150 times stronger than in that old thread. Perhaps a lot of people opened their eyes when the guy known as "choker" beat "iceman" and won the superbowl, but in the grand scheme, that is all irrelivant.

Your argument in this post is something I will respect, and is totally legitimate in terms of building a case for Brady being better than Manning. It is many, many times more sensible than anything dealing with championships, which of course measure "fufilledness", not "skill".

That doesn't mean I don't have an explination for it.

What you have mentioned is the principle commonly known as the ability for great quarterbacks to make their receivers look better than they are. In football, there is an assumption that a completed pass is 50 % the skill of the quarterback, and 50 % the skill of the receiver.

However, all quarterbacks can maintain proven levels of production with different levels of receiver quality, and systems. Recievers simply can not produce when the quarterback is bad. If the quarterback is bad, the offense can't sustain, and even great receivers are totally irrelivant.

Think Moss on Oakland. Or Welker in Miami. Now pair them with Brady, a legitmately good to great quarterback, and you have historically awesome production. Clearly, Brady's job is easier when he's got Moss and Welker, but Brady was great (statistically) before he had them. Moss was nothing without Culpepper, and Welker was sometimes promising, but never had consistent production.

Put Reggie Wayne on Oakland. Does he become a bad player? No. Does the production go away? Yep.

Based on this, I can say that passing effiency is highly weighted to the talent of the QB. Being generous, you could say at least 70-30, but I would argue that it's more like 80-20.

That's why Manning's passing number's are legitimate. As a quarterback, he is in control of roughly 80 percent of his conventional statistical output. Prior to 2007, his numbers were more than 120 percent of what Brady's career numbers looked like. Therefore, if you deemed that Brady was playing with total scrubs, you'd still have to say Manning was better. Brady wasn't playing with total scrubs though, he had some elite tight ends.

Brady's numbers were way, way, way, way better this year. Surely you must have realized it. You can look at it as if he finally got the help at receiver, but based on the previous conclusion that Brady is over 80 percent responsible for his own statistics, there's no way Brady would have played as well as he did this year if he didn't make a big personel improvement.

Which is why I've come to realize my error in the Manning debate. My error wasn't anything I said about Manning being better at the time. It was my ignorance of Brady being a year and a half younger and having two fewer years of NFL experience. I didn't account for the fact that Manning was in his prime, and that Brady was potentially still improving.

Still, I find it hard to believe that Brady's 2007 is an accurate representation of how good he really is. If it turns out to be, then we can almost certainly agree with you that Brady is the best ever. I would bet my house though that he's going to decline a bit next year.

There were some good pro Brady arguments, it's just that no one bothered to make them because they were too wrapped up in what he did over 13 playoff games, which is roughly equivlent to having a single good season.

When I first thought of this I thought no, but I think now more and more that he might if he keeps putting up numbers like this for another 4 or so years. I have only seen him play one bad game out of perhaps 100 in his life and that was the play-off game vs Denver in 05 season. Montana and him are similar. To think he went in the 6th round!

When I first thought of this I thought no, but I think now more and more that he might if he keeps putting up numbers like this for another 4 or so years. I have only seen him play one bad game out of perhaps 100 in his life and that was the play-off game vs Denver in 05 season. Montana and him are similar. To think he went in the 6th round!Exactly.

I don't care who is catching passes for him. If he can do this for another 2-3 years, then he has to be the leading candidate to be the best QB of all time.

Until then, we'd just be jumping the gun. We can't assume that 2007 was anything but the best year Brady will ever have.

P.S. He was pretty horrible in the San Diego playoff game last year, and not too much better against San Diego this year.

Let's just say I have very strong opinions on this one.

Before this year, you would have been off your rocker if you thought you could even mention Brady with the likes of the all-time greats. Before this year, he hadn't really seperated himself from the Palmer's, Brees', Bulger's, or Hasselbeck's of the world despite playing on some historically great teams, and winning multiple super bowls. It was a joke after the super bowl last year to even compare him to Peyton Manning.

One year later, he's definately got to be in the discussion.

I would say that in terms of great quarterback years, Brady's 2007 ranks third to only Steve Young's 1994, and Dan Marino's 1984 in terms of greatest year ever by a quarterback, and is pretty close to tied with Manning's 2004. (He broke the historic tenth year trend!)

Right now, Brady has yet to prove that 2007 was any more than an uncharacteristically great year for a pretty good quarterback. If he can replicate his numbers this year through the 2008 and 2009 seasons, then I think he should get some serious pull for best quarterback ever.

A pretty good QB????? Huh??? Sorry but when a guy QB's 3 winning SB's and it could very well be a 4th, and he's the single biggest reason why they won those 3 SB's, I would call him a great QB. Throw out the statistical stuff. He's never had a great running back and never had a great wr until now and he still QB'd 3 winning SB's. Sometimes you can just look at a guy, and if you take him off the team they are probably not nearly as good. Troy Aikman is a prime example. Not a great stat qb but we all know he was a great QB. Same with Elway.

I would seperate him from all of those other guys because he's done it in the playoffs and SB's when it's counts the most. 3 TIMES. End of discussion.

Exactly.

I don't care who is catching passes for him. If he can do this for another 2-3 years, then he has to be the leading candidate to be the best QB of all time.

Until then, we'd just be jumping the gun. We can't assume that 2007 was anything but the best year Brady will ever have.

P.S. He was pretty horrible in the San Diego playoff game last year, and not too much better against San Diego this year.

He wasn't bad against SD. Sometimes a Qb gets in a situation where they have to force the ball instead of checking it down, which he did a few times. Horrible? No way. This year's game against SD was probably his worse game.

I think Brady has been fortunate to play for the team he does. The Best Ever is so definite, whereas it's a very indefinitely kind of thing to compare him to others.

I can imagine to say he's one of the best ever, but one of. There are plenty of QBs before him that are just as good if not better. He's just fortunate to have played on teams that have been the total package.

A pretty good QB????? Huh??? Sorry but when a guy QB's 3 winning SB's and it could very well be a 4th, and he's the single biggest reason why they won those 3 SB's, I would call him a great QB. Throw out the statistical stuff. He's never had a great running back and never had a great wr until now and he still QB'd 3 winning SB's. Sometimes you can just look at a guy, and if you take him off the team they are probably not nearly as good. Troy Aikman is a prime example. Not a great stat qb but we all know he was a great QB. Same with Elway.

I would seperate him from all of those other guys because he's done it in the playoffs and SB's when it's counts the most. 3 TIMES. End of discussion.Fine great, whatever. Pretty good in the sense I used it was not trying to say "less than great" but rather generalize his talent level with all of the other really good quarterbacks. Totally unscientifically.

You know me well enough to know that if I want to say "player x is better than player y", I'll give numerical values so you know exactly how much better "x" is than "y". I won't rely on the ability for one to order "pretty good", "good", "great", and "kinda great" in terms of ability.

When you see a quarterback with a great media rep without the numbers to back it up, that's not a "great QB". It's definately not an indictment of the numbers. That's called "overrated".

Taking a guy off a roster is a good litmus test to try to tell just how good he is, but it doesn't matter if one doesn't do it properly. Take Brady off the Patriots from 03-06, replace him with Jon Kitna, and they still make the playoffs every year. They don't go as far in the playoffs, because obviously their offense isn't nearly as good, but they still win that division.

Take Brady off the Pats 03-06, replace him with Manning, and they still likely win two SBs in those 4 years. That's just common sense.

Clearly, it is impossible to overrate Brady's 2007 season. It was historically great. I'm just wondering why people couldn't wait until he had a season like this before they jumped the gun and called him the best ever.