Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B
My friends and I used to have the same sort of debate - Brady or Peyton Manning? Manning was flashier, especially early on, more yards, more TDs. But Brady won more. With us it was a lot more basic than it is here. More like "manning is awesome! he threw for 350" ( or 400 or whatever it was.)
"Brady only threw for 147". Yeah, but the Colts lost and the Pats won, so who's really better?
Brady was a game manager early on, that was the knock against him, that he just killed people with so many 5-10 yard passes and not making to many risky throws or trying to force a play that wasn't there.
One of the non-stat things that would make me put him up there as the best would be that over the 18 years he's changed from a fairly conservative manager to someone that throws down field, to someone very different from most, neither a manager or shooting for long plays, but taking what's left available for him. There aren't many players in any sport that can change styles without a few years of adjustment.
That he's got a coaching staff that adjusts plays and styles to match a players abilities, and ownership that provides stability by not panicking if there's a season that isn't spectacular has made that easier, but how many players do you see who can't adjust when there's a new coach with a different style.
|
right...i also hate the 'more talented' argument for other players... talent is like potential. The goal is to win games. Id take someone that actually goes to superbowls than someone with all the talent in the world that cant.
Bird in the hand is the QB that's been there and done that. The what if game can work for a little bit (what if this guy was on that team ) if the margin is small but with brady its just silly to compare. There are players that that get hurt and never play again after a few years and I'm sure we can do the 'what if' game being that if the never got hurt and played on X team and since they are the most talented now THEY are the best player...not the guy that actually played 18 years and won more championships than anyone else..
there are also gimmick years. ie run and shoot etc but after a yearly adjustment, the stats change. Brady is no gimmick. Who cares if he doesn't have the strongest arm versus this guy or doesn't do this versus that guy.. If you don't play the seasons, you don't get the credt.
if some guy played 5 years and won 5 superbowls and retired and was the most talented ever, i would still put him behind brady because the guy that plays 10 more years plus gets more credit...
basically if i had a franchise, would i want a guy for 5 years with 500 touchdowns and 5 championships or a guy like brady...