After All: He's Only 40!

[steve B]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

theres winning and then theres WINNING.

people used to argue bradshaw/montana etc cause of a whopping 4 superbowls...versus some passing stat stud with 1 or 0 superbowls

when you are getting to 8 superbowls..possibly 10 ...this type of argument really looks silly now when going against a guy with all those SB appearences

manage the game qbs like Dilfer etc , yeah they will get to a super bowl perhaps..but to get into 8, the QB has to be good..again its not like brady averages 200 yards a game either...his passing stats are up there too..and the counting stats etc..

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.