All Forums > SimLeague Football > NFL > Patriots 9.5 points favorites over Ravens
2/14/2013 11:14 AM
Brady doesn't suck.

He is a bit above average. If I were to rate Brady from 1-100, with 100 being the best possible QB ever and 50 being average, I'd say he's somewhere between 60 and 65. If I'm being really nice to him, I might go as high as 70. By comparison, I'd put Peyton Manning around 90 to 95 , Rodgers and Brees at 85 or so, and even Eli Manning would be about 80.

However, on that same scale, I'd say many people believe Brady is at 90 or above. That's why I say he's so over rated. What he actually does is far below what he gets credit for doing.
Without the championships, in a lesser market, Brady is a "system QB who can't win the big one."
Agree 100 percent with this.

Think of it this way: If NE hadn't won those three Super Bowls - which is very possible given the close outcomes of those games and some of the other playoff games leading up to them - how would you view Brady?

I think with no rings Brady is seen as the biggest choker in the history of the game, and this would have been emphasized a great deal if he had made 5 SBs and lost them all.

People like to laugh at Buffalo Bills for losing 4 SBs, but Brady would be seen as much worse if he'd managed to lose all 5.


2/14/2013 11:39 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/14/2013 11:01:00 AM (view original):
I'm not really agreeing with biz.  From what I've seen, Brady sucks in his eyes.   That's not right.

I'll disagree about Brady in KC being viewed similarly without the championships.   Vehemently disagree. Fouts is viewed as "a really good passer who couldn't win the big one."     At the time, he was setting all sorts of records.    But that's because of "the system".     Is Fouts viewed as a top 5 all-time by anyone?   Without the championships, in a lesser market, Brady is a "system QB who can't win the big one."
I think you're missing what I'm trying to say.  I think.

If Brady won 0 championships, in Boston, he'd be viewed a certain way.  And I think he'd be viewed that way with 0 championships in KC too.
2/14/2013 11:46 AM
Yes, winning championships helps to elevate someone's status.  Eli Manning is a good QB, who is considered "elite" now (very overplayed in NY market...very annoying) because he won 2 Super Bowls, and led his team late in each game to a game-winning drive.  Is Eli one of the best QBs in the game, talent-wise? I'd argue no. But the Super Bowls elevate QBs, because they are the leaders of the offense.  One could say "Brady won 3 Super Bowls, but choked in others..." and I could retort "he should have 4, Eli should have been picked off in his first Super Bowl" and then, who knows if Eli wins another.  If you want to downplay championships, and simply look at talent that a QB has, and use that as your argument, then ok.  But even THEN, when you take out all championships, Brady is still a great QB.  And certainly better than Eli Manning.
2/14/2013 11:47 AM

With the numbers he's put up, he'd be viewed as a failure in NE.   In KC, not so much because KC is not NE.

But, outside of the NE province, he'd be viewed the same in NE as he would be in KC.

2/14/2013 11:48 AM
Without championships everyone is viewed upon as lesser.  ****, Manning was viewed lesser till he won his.  

That's got to be the dumbest argument against Brady that i've seen.  "If he didn't win those titles, he wouldn't be looked at as one of the greatest!".  No ****!  You have to win titles to be considered one of the best.  Look at Marino in the NFL...had he won 1 superbowl, he'd probably be considered the best ever.  He didn't.....so now he's lumped in the 4-10 range or greats.

Same goes for Karl Malone and Charles Barkley in the NBA.  


2/14/2013 11:50 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/14/2013 11:47:00 AM (view original):

With the numbers he's put up, he'd be viewed as a failure in NE.   In KC, not so much because KC is not NE.

But, outside of the NE province, he'd be viewed the same in NE as he would be in KC.

Not true.  We didn't New Englands expectations have grown since the Superbowl runs.  Before then, a great season would have been a playoff birth.  Now...it's Superbowl or bust.
2/14/2013 11:52 AM
Yea, I'd argue KC was a much bigger football region than NE was pre-Brady.
2/14/2013 1:33 PM
Posted by 05nomar05 on 2/14/2013 11:48:00 AM (view original):
Without championships everyone is viewed upon as lesser.  ****, Manning was viewed lesser till he won his.  

That's got to be the dumbest argument against Brady that i've seen.  "If he didn't win those titles, he wouldn't be looked at as one of the greatest!".  No ****!  You have to win titles to be considered one of the best.  Look at Marino in the NFL...had he won 1 superbowl, he'd probably be considered the best ever.  He didn't.....so now he's lumped in the 4-10 range or greats.

Same goes for Karl Malone and Charles Barkley in the NBA.  


So Marino dropped all the way to 4 because he failed to win a Super Bowl?  OMG!!!!!

2/14/2013 1:38 PM
BTW, I'd argue that every team in the NE took greater prominence with the invention of ESPN.
2/14/2013 1:39 PM
M y point is that if you take out the damn rings....anyone and everyone drops down a peg.

******* moron.
2/14/2013 1:44 PM
Sez the dipshit who has argued with biz for 50 pages.  
2/14/2013 1:46 PM
If Brady won 0 championships, in Boston, he'd be viewed a certain way.  And I think he'd be viewed that way with 0 championships in KC too.

Yeah, he'd be viewed as a "determined" QB, kind of like Tony Romo.

Everywhere else, he'd be considered the greatest choker of all time.
Eli Manning is a good QB, who is considered "elite" now (very overplayed in NY market...very annoying) because he won 2 Super Bowls, and led his team late in each game to a game-winning drive. 
I think Eli is a good but NOT elite QB. However, I will say his drives in the two Super Bowl wins WERE elite material. If he did more of that in the regular season, he'd be elite overall. I still think he's significantly better than Brady and if my life depended upon one of them leading a drive to a score, it would be an easy decision to go with Eli. If it depended only on stats, then perhaps I'd have to consider Brady, but in ability to do what needs to be done its Eli all the way.
Is Eli one of the best QBs in the game, talent-wise? I'd argue no.
No, he's not. Neither is Brady.

Both of them are over rated due to Super Bowl wins. The difference is that Eli actually deserves about 75 percent of the credit he gets, while Brady deserves about 30 percent of what he gets. Both over rated, but Brady wins the over rated ****ing contest easily.
If you want to downplay championships, and simply look at talent that a QB has, and use that as your argument, then ok.
It's not a perfect way to compare QBs, but it is certainly better than over rating anyone who wins a title or titles.
But even THEN, when you take out all championships, Brady is still a great QB.  And certainly better than Eli Manning.
That's just it: Take away the titles and Brady isn't a great QB at all.  He's Donvan McNabb with a better o-line and receivers and less athletic ability.

In fact, the two make an interesting comparison and are remarkably similar in many ways:

McNabb's career rating is lower and so are his passing yards, but he's also been sacked 107 more times over his career in 10 less games played, indicating he hasn't had the o-line support Brady has. 

McNabb also throws INTs at roughly the same conservative rate as Brady (McNabb throws an INT 2.2 percent of the time, Brady 2.1 percent).

McNabb's best statistical season came (and ended in the Super Bowl) when he had one of the game's premier receivers to throw to (Terrell Owens), while Brady's best statistical season also came (and ended in the Super Bowl) when he had one of the game's premier receivers to throw to (Randy Moss).

Brady's yardage numbers over his career are greater, but he's played ten more games and has thrown 584 more passes, so he should have more yards by virtue of that alone.

Brady is statistically a better QB, but not by as much as you would think based on Brady being seen as "elite" and McNabb being thought of as an "also-ran". I'd say without his 3 rings, Brady wouldn't be viewed as better than McNabb except maybe in New England and/or by Pats fans.
You have to win titles to be considered one of the best. 
If you have an extremely myopic point of view.

If you have an objective point of view - or anything close - a QB is measured by what he does in total, not just Super Bowl titles.
Look at Marino in the NFL...had he won 1 superbowl, he'd probably be considered the best ever.  He didn't.....so now he's lumped in the 4-10 range or greats.
So your argument is that if Marino's team hadn't met the buzzsaw that was Montana's 49ers when he was a rookie, he'd be the greatest ever? The winning or losing of that one game makes that much difference?  Only in the minds of those who over rate based on titles.

Marino deserves to be included in any discussion of the greatest ever, even without a ring.
Same goes for Karl Malone and Charles Barkley in the NBA. 
Just because Michael Jordan shoved Byron Russell out of his way in 1997 and it was never called an offensive foul (in the word of Comic Book Guy: worst...blown call...ever), you think Malone isn't great? Or because Barkley completely dominated the NBA in 1993 (and in other years) but the Suns couldn't beat Jordan's Bulls, he's not great? Again, only in the minds of those who over rate based on titles.

Both of those guys should be in any discussion of the game's greatest players.
2/14/2013 2:13 PM
"McNabb's career rating is lower and so are his passing yards, but he's also been sacked 107 more times over his career in 10 less games played, indicating he hasn't had the o-line support Brady has. "

I got to here and stopped reading.  I had forgotten that you ignore everything I say that hurts your argument.  
2/14/2013 2:24 PM
Steve Young put up amazing numbers, won passing titles, and won MVP awards.  And wasn't worth a **** until he won a Super Bowl.  At least in the Bay Area...

And Marino isn't a top 5 QB.  He's a stat monster, and a fantasy football icon, but honestly, I'd put Jim Kelly ahead of him.
2/14/2013 2:28 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 2/14/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Steve Young put up amazing numbers, won passing titles, and won MVP awards.  And wasn't worth a **** until he won a Super Bowl.  At least in the Bay Area...

And Marino isn't a top 5 QB.  He's a stat monster, and a fantasy football icon, but honestly, I'd put Jim Kelly ahead of him.
The fact that Young played in the shadow of Montana hurts him.  He was a BEAST.

Marino > Kelly.  Come on.  I'll let you take it back if you want.
of 85
All Forums > SimLeague Football > NFL > Patriots 9.5 points favorites over Ravens

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.