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.