Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector
We not talking about fantasy football. When you are down, yes you can get more passing yards but also at a risk of INTs...you dont see QBs who lose 40-24 usually throw for 3 tds and 0 picks....
its not like Brady is throwing for 220 yards and managing the games. He is throwing for enough yards and 'winning' enough games in my book to reach critical mass to be declared the best even when compared to any players that 'crush' him in yards/tds etc or would have crushed him if they played today.
Plus Brady has shown to win games with a bunch of rotating WR RBs that have cycled throughout the league. Marino clayton and duper is not even closes to montana having Taylor/Rice and many more other better options.
Basically if we list the best options Brady had , i believe for the most part its Brady (and the Brady/Pats system) that made them great.
Matt Cassal did win 10 games though...anyway..
Bill Russell is sort of lumped into the great, but it was his team category. I dont think Brady is remotely close to Russell. In todays modern era in football and salary cap and concussions, good luck ever seeing another QB go and start in 8 superbowls ever again.
|
No, but the results there are directly tied to the real world stats.
Teams with mediocre offenses or good offenses against better defenses will use the kicker more.
A good QB on a team that has a poor defense will throw for more yards more often. - Rogers, Brees
I do think the team has been amazing, and I've been fortunate to be a fan during that run. A long way from them getting crushed by the bears, or Rod Rust nearly getting electrocuted by the microphone at his introductory press conference..
That there are QBs like Rogers and Brees who put up flashy enough stats to make an argument that winning the most might not make you the best player at a position also says a lot about the entire last 20 years.