Quote:
Originally Posted by Hail2theskins
I cant stand any brady supporter arguments because you only have one... look at the rings man look at the rings... who gives a flying f*ck. that doesnt mean anything, the pats are good because of coaching not because tom brady is some miracle QB. being a quarterback is about leadership, but its also about playing your goddamn posistion which he is NOT THE GREATEST AT, good yes, but no way in hell the greatest. Look at the skins for chrissakes, 3 different qbs with superbowl wins in 10 years. I gurantee you the pats could win with a different QB, then everyone might think a little differently about brady, get off his damn nuts. The pats have a GOOD TEAM with a GOOD QUARTERBACK and EXCELLENT COACHING, not the greatest QB in the nfl, the pats win with a strong team effort and a good coach. you cant just deny statistics on the field and then arbitraly throw in, look at how many rings hes got hes obviously the greatest. WHO CARES how many damn rings hes got, if hes not producing the numbers hes not the best qb in the nfl.
|
I totally respect your position. But to minimize three Super Bowl rings makes about as much sense as the Gibbs apologists try to do when pointing to his three Super Bowls to validate his greatness. You can't validate one and dismiss the other. They go hand in hand. Yes, coaching is critical to success, but the game is played between the lines.
If three rings are good enough to call a head coach great, then they're damn sure good enough to categorize a quarterback great who headed three teams to three Super Bowl wins. Would the Pats be as good without Brady, ummm...that's debatable actually.