Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

No, it wasn't. You stated that without Brady that team does not achieve 10 wins, implying another QB could not assist them to win 10 games. I said I disagree.

I didnt imply that at all, their are some qbs that they would win 10 games with this year, but previous ones I disagree. I dont think they win 3 superbowls without him.

it is still too early in his career to be the "greatest"

Originally Posted by rugger48

I didnt imply that at all, their are some qbs that they would win 10 games with this year, but previous ones I disagree. I dont think they win 3 superbowls without him.

Are you sure?

The patriots without brady dont win 10 games

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

Are you sure?

Honestly i agree with him mullet. Yes the pats have a very good team in general that are effective in all aspects of the game, however the dynamic that brady adds to the team is quite remarkable and unique. I agree many qb's would be effective in their offensive set, but qb's like brady and manning have unique characteristics to them that define their teams success. I honestly don't believe that New England would have won 3 superbowls without him. They may have done well, but he makes them that much better in the end.

Oh no, he definitely pioneered those wins, and was a very large aspect of them; I was only disagreeing with the 10 win comment, and the 'Are you sure?' was directed at rugger saying he did not imply that.

Originally Posted by Reaper329

it is still too early in his career to be the "greatest"

Thank you for seeing it this way. Brady has another 5-6 good years if he stays relatively healthy. He's a South Bay Area guy so I secretely root for him as well as Jeff Garcia and Trent Edwards. He may win another 2-3 Super Bowls or he may not win another one after this year. The NFL is unpredictable these days so let's all be patient and bump this thread 5-6 years from now

Brady not put up Play Station stats, 50TD's to 8 INT's. That's 6.25 TD's per INT, an unheard of ratio.

A few mentioned that Brady hasn't had any stellar moments like Montana, Elway, or Favre. What about the Super Bowl upset against the Rams ? What about the come from behind win agaisnt the Raiders in the tuck rule game ? He still had to make many plays to bring the Pats back against the Raiders.

Brady did throw 3INT's vs. San Diego but that's an hiccup, he's too damn good to the same thing again.

Someone mentioned that the Pats wouldn't be a 10 game winner w/out him. Let's be realistic though, take away Manning out of the Colts, Romo out of the Cowboys, Roethlisberger out of the Steelers and suddenly you have an average squad because this is the most crucial position in the NFL, that's why they make tons of ca$h.

One thing I would like to see is Brady leading another team to a Super Bowl win or strong Super Bowl run at the end of his career. I think this is what shows Montana's true greatness since he led the Chiefs to the AFC title game. His main offensive threat was an old Marcus Allen. He did this after he had suffered what was considered 2 career ending injuries, one in 1986 and the other in 1990, both against the freaking Giants !

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

Oh no, he definitely pioneered those wins, and was a very large aspect of them; I was only disagreeing with the 10 win comment, and the 'Are you sure?' was directed at rugger saying he did not imply that.

Oh.....my bad

Originally Posted by Reaper329

it is still too early in his career to be the "greatest"

Not if he ties and/or beats those who are deemed the greatest in terms of stats (on a yearly basis, not career) and Superbowl wins.

Let's spread some of the credit to his O-line. Those guys give him just ridiculous amounts of time in the pocket. Any NFL QB would be good with that much time.

Originally Posted by The_Reverend

Let's spread some of the credit to his O-line. Those guys give him just ridiculous amounts of time in the pocket. Any NFL QB would be good with that much time.

Every great QB had a great O line. Its ALL relative. In fact, if I look at the Colts line (when Manning broke the record) and Montana's great years, I think they had MORE offensive talent then New England has now.

Originally Posted by The_Reverend

Let's spread some of the credit to his O-line. Those guys give him just ridiculous amounts of time in the pocket. Any NFL QB would be good with that much time.

True, but he's very decisive and has great footwork in the pocket. Those little things can be the difference between getting sacked or completing a clutch 3rd & long pass

Originally Posted by Kramer

Every great QB had a great O line. Its ALL relative. In fact, if I look at the Colts line (when Manning broke the record) and Montana's great years, I think they had MORE offensive talent then New England has now.

The 1989 49ers squad was loaded ! The difference was that Roger Craig and Tom Rathman were lethal receiving threats out of the backfield. Faulk is good but Craig led the 49ers receiving during the Jerry Rice era. Craig also had 1,000+ yards receiving and 1,500+ rushing in one season, not bad for a guy who was started his career as a fullback.

Originally Posted by Kramer

Every great QB had a great O line. Its ALL relative. In fact, if I look at the Colts line (when Manning broke the record) and Montana's great years, I think they had MORE offensive talent then New England has now.

You make a valid point, but I'm not sure you can say Manning's/Montana's lines were better than Brady's.

Originally Posted by Iron Warrior

True, but he's very decisive and has great footwork in the pocket. Those little things can be the difference between getting sacked or completing a clutch 3rd & long pass

He's very calculated and cool.

Originally Posted by The_Reverend

You make a valid point, but I'm not sure you can say Manning's/Montana's lines were better than Brady's.

Sure I can. I watched them all.

Sacks allowed this year.

New England 18 games 24 total

Indy 17 games 23 allowed.


Both were beat by Saints, Bengals, Packers and Browns.


Colts led the league in 2005 and 2006

Originally Posted by Kramer

Sure I can. I watched them all.

Sacks allowed this year.

New England 18 games 24 total

Indy 17 games 23 allowed.


Both were beat by Saints, Bengals, Packers and Browns.


Colts led the league in 2005 and 2006

Sacks don't tell the whole story. Factors such as elusiveness, how long a QB holds onto the ball, etc play a part as well. Manning gets rid of the ball much quicker than Brady.

Originally Posted by The_Reverend

Manning gets rid of the ball much quicker than Brady.

Maybe that's true, but in doing so manning also made more mistakes than brady in the end of the year. All in all the results and performances speak for themselves......brady is playing in the superbowl yet again, and manning will be at home watching it on tv again. You could go round and round all day long with the "Who's the better quarterback arguement." This year there's really no question about who it was. I'll completely agree to the fact that brady isn't the best QB ever "yet", but he's well on his way of accomplishing that feat if his progress and accomplishments continue.

If the pats win this superbowl convincingly and complete the perfect season, they'll be no doubt in my mind he's one of the best to ever play the position. It's really amazing the similarities montana and brady have in their overall play, leadership and demeanor.

Originally Posted by Trauma1

Maybe that's true, but in doing so manning also made more mistakes than brady in the end of the year. All in all the results and performances speak for themselves......brady is playing in the superbowl yet again, and manning will be at home watching it on tv again. You could go round and round all day long with the "Who's the better quarterback arguement." This year there's really no question about who it was. I'll completely agree to the fact that brady isn't the best QB ever "yet", but he's well on his way of accomplishing that feat if his progress and accomplishments continue.

If the pats win this superbowl convincingly and complete the perfect season, they'll be no doubt in my mind he's one of the best to ever play the position. It's really amazing the similarities montana and brady have in their overall play, leadership and demeanor.

As much as I hate the Pats, you have a strong argument if we want to talk bottom line.

I don't see the Pats losing the superbowl, they're too damn efficient and confident this year... Oi!!

It's going to doubly annoy me when they achieve that perfect record too... [deep sigh]

Originally Posted by The_Reverend

Sacks don't tell the whole story. Factors such as elusiveness, how long a QB holds onto the ball, etc play a part as well. Manning gets rid of the ball much quicker than Brady.

If he gets the ball off quicker then it should benefit his stats and performance more so than Brady. It didn't... which sort of proves the point even more.

Originally Posted by Trauma1

Maybe that's true, but in doing so manning also made more mistakes than brady in the end of the year. All in all the results and performances speak for themselves......brady is playing in the superbowl yet again, and manning will be at home watching it on tv again. You could go round and round all day long with the "Who's the better quarterback arguement." This year there's really no question about who it was. I'll completely agree to the fact that brady isn't the best QB ever "yet", but he's well on his way of accomplishing that feat if his progress and accomplishments continue.

If the pats win this superbowl convincingly and complete the perfect season, they'll be no doubt in my mind he's one of the best to ever play the position. It's really amazing the similarities montana and brady have in their overall play, leadership and demeanor.

Where did all that come from? I wasn't arguing which QB is better.

Originally Posted by Kramer

If he gets the ball off quicker then it should benefit his stats and performance more so than Brady. It didn't... which sort of proves the point even more.

How so? I feel that the extra time in the pocket can allow your receiver to complete his route and get open. Weren't we discussing o-lines and not the better QB???

Originally Posted by Kramer

Not if he ties and/or beats those who are deemed the greatest in terms of stats (on a yearly basis, not career) and Superbowl wins.

at this point in his career it is still too early. However within the next 5 years, if he is healthy, and has won another super bowl or two, its his.

Originally Posted by The_Reverend

Where did all that come from? I wasn't arguing which QB is better.

Maybe you weren't, but they sentence i responded to could have been taken in different ways. Anyway, a solid offensive line absolutely adds a definative dynamic to any QB's abilities in general, however imho quarterbacks' are defined in their ability to make good decisions while under pressure.

Originally Posted by Trauma1

Maybe you weren't, but they sentence i responded to could have been taken in different ways. Anyway, a solid offensive line absolutely adds a definative dynamic to any QB's abilities in general, however imho quarterbacks' are defined in their ability to make good decisions while under pressure.

Well said. I just think his o-line often gets overlooked.

Originally Posted by The_Reverend

How so? I feel that the extra time in the pocket can allow your receiver to complete his route and get open. Weren't we discussing o-lines and not the better QB???

Because Manning and Brady have outstanding lines and watching both teams (have to love direct tv) for years, I conclude that Indy's line is better (and so do the stats). You can credit O-Lines all you want but there isn't much of a difference between the two. New England doesnt allow far greater time than Indy does at all. In fact, its the opposite. Indy gives up less sacks with a less mobile QB. They rank top 5 every year and have been ranked number 1 in both 2005 and 2006.

Now add that on top of a quicker release from Manning (which is the one of the most fundamental aspects of a QB) and Manning should have better stats. He doesn't (this year). When he was at his best, he broke an NFL record. Brady broke it and its not because their line gave him more time.

Originally Posted by Jerry

Because Manning and Brady have outstanding lines and watching both teams (have to love direct tv) for years, I conclude that Indy's line is better (and so do the stats). You can credit O-Lines all you want but there isn't much of a difference between the two. New England doesnt allow far greater time than Indy does at all. In fact, its the opposite. Indy gives up less sacks with a less mobile QB. They rank top 5 every year and have been ranked number 1 in both 2005 and 2006.

Now add that on top of a quicker release from Manning (which is the one of the most fundamental aspects of a QB) and Manning should have better stats. He doesn't (this year). When he was at his best, he broke an NFL record. Brady broke it and its not because their line gave him more time.

Again, I'm not trying to discuss which QB is better. That's a toss up in my opinion. I guess what I'm trying to say is the O-lines often don't get the credit they deserve. Just think back to the 90's Dallas team when Emmitt Smith would buy all of his linemen a Rolex as a sign of appreciation. I don't hear of that happening anymore.

Originally Posted by The_Reverend

Just think back to the 90's Dallas team when Emmitt Smith would buy all of his linemen a Rolex as a sign of appreciation. I don't hear of that happening anymore.

Damn emmitt i want a rolex!......actually i'll just take a little trip into the city and get me a nice cheap knock-off.

Originally Posted by The_Reverend

Again, I'm not trying to discuss which QB is better. That's a toss up in my opinion. I guess what I'm trying to say is the O-lines often don't get the credit they deserve. Just think back to the 90's Dallas team when Emmitt Smith would buy all of his linemen a Rolex as a sign of appreciation. I don't hear of that happening anymore.

Wow, never knew that. That's some above & beyond show of appreciation! Great guy.

I think a few things are being lost here. Firstly, up until this year Brady was viewed as a fantastic clutch player, but not necessarily a "QB's QB". Reggie Miller was also a fantastic clutch player, but that does not mean he was better than Michael Jordan.

Secondly, the Patriots have won 3 Super Bowls, not Tom Brady. The old "too much credit when they win, and too much blame when they lose" adage applies here. Last time I checked, Tom Brady plays one position on one side of the ball.

Thirdly, Manning still owns Brady as it pertains to records. As it stands, although Brady's 2007 broke Manning's single-season TD record, many other records Manning set that year still stand (including highest passer rating, most consecutive games with at least 2 and 4 TDs respectively) . He is also on pace to break every major statistic for a QB. Completions, passes, yards, TDs, and he already holds the 2nd highest passer rating for a career and most games with a perfect passer rating. Despite his fantastic year, Manning is still a better statistical QB. As I said, the Patriots and not Tom Brady beat Indy so many times.

Fourthly, I am not quick to anoint anybody the 'best' just yet. I am sick of hearing "the next Gretzky" or "the next Jordan" only to see players like Lindros, Daigle, Kwame Brown, and their ilk fizzle and drop. Now, T.Brady is already approaching unparalleled success, so I am not insinuating he is hack (obviously) just that a more tempered response is necessary.

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

I think a few things are being lost here. Firstly, up until this year Brady was viewed as a fantastic clutch player, but not necessarily a "QB's QB". Reggie Miller was also a fantastic clutch player, but that does not mean he was better than Michael Jordan.

Secondly, the Patriots have won 3 Super Bowls, not Tom Brady. The old "too much credit when they win, and too much blame when they lose" adage applies here. Last time I checked, Tom Brady plays one position on one side of the ball.

Thirdly, Manning still owns Brady as it pertains to records. As it stands, although Brady's 2007 broke Manning's single-season TD record, many other records Manning set that year still stand (including highest passer rating, most consecutive games with at least 2 and 4 TDs respectively) . He is also on pace to break every major statistic for a QB. Completions, passes, yards, TDs, and he already holds the 2nd highest passer rating for a career and most games with a perfect passer rating. Despite his fantastic year, Manning is still a better statistical QB. As I said, the Patriots and not Tom Brady beat Indy so many times.

Fourthly, I am not quick to anoint anybody the 'best' just yet. I am sick of hearing "the next Gretzky" or "the next Jordan" only to see players like Lindros, Daigle, Kwame Brown, and their ilk fizzle and drop. Now, T.Brady is already approaching unparalleled success, so I am not insinuating he is hack (obviously) just that a more tempered response is necessary.

Everyone here has good posts, even perspectives I don't necessarily agree with have been delivered and expressed with great point of views.