Posted by tangplay on 2/3/2022 4:17:00 PM (view original):
Depends on the QB that replaces Brady.
Although I note that the TEAM is NEVER brought up when Brady wins. It's only when he loses that it's on the team.
I would argue that the TEAM was more responsible for a bunch of Brady super bowls.
This is what I was going to say.
I do believe Brady has been incredibly lucky in his career. Not for the reasons you have enumerated. He's had some lucky wins in the postseason, but I just don't agree that they are "one in a million" type events. They're mostly just garden-variety lucky games. As has already been discussed, he lost some of those too. That's just what you'd expect from a guy who's started almost twice as many postseason games as any other quarterback in history. Although I would point out that he gets way too much credit for being the youngest QB to start and win a superbowl and getting MVP in that game. He threw for under 150 yards. Yes, he led a great game-winning drive. Credit where it's due, he's always been great under pressure. But that wouldn't even have been necessary if he hadn't been so totally ineffective for virtually the entire game prior to that drive. He had under 100 yards at the 2-minute warning. Of the 2nd half. Ty Law or Willie McGinest clearly should have been the MVP of that game.
The reason Brady was lucky was because he was drafted by a great team with a great coach, and through their combined efforts it remained a great team where veterans regularly took below market value to try to win a Super Bowl. Tom Brady arguably played on more elite teams than any other QB in history, except maybe Terry Bradshaw. Lest we forget, in 2008 the Patriots went 11-5 with Matt Cassel as the starting quarterback. Matt Cassel was not, as it turned out, good at football. When he left Kansas City and they brought in Alex Smith (and Andy Reid, to be fair) they went from 2 wins (Cassel) to 11 wins (Smith). The Patriots didn't need Tom Brady to be a very good team. Was he a part of the equation that made them the all-time best dynasty? Definitely. But he didn't need to carry the team.
Everybody loves to talk about the fact that Brady was taken in the 6th round. That means anyone could have drafted him. What if he had gone to the Browns? The Jaguars? Bengals? Lions? Washington? Would he still have been TOM BRADY? I know there are plenty of Brady worshippers out there who will absolutely answer yes to this question. Those people are clearly wrong. Nobody was going to succeed with those teams at that time. Guys drafted in the 6th round don't tend to get 2nd and 3rd chances to prove themselves. What if he'd been drafted by the Packers? He might well never have started a game. Tom Brady was all-time lucky in terms of the circumstances in which he found himself throughout his career.
Brady is the greatest player in NFL history by virtue of his longevity and consistency. I think it's important to define what we mean by GOAT, though. Interestingly enough, I think there's a valid argument that he was never at any point in his career the best quarterback in the league. Early he was clearly behind Manning. Manning peaked earlier than Brady, and I actually think peak Manning vs. peak Brady is still an interesting question. I'd probably still lean towards Peyton, but it's really really close. But by the time Brady was hitting that peak, Aaron Rodgers was doing his thing. I would say that probably for one year in 2007 Brady was actually the best quarterback in football. I don't think he's in the discussion for best passer of all time. Rodgers clearly is. Mahomes probably will be, I think his sample size is probably still too small. Marino belongs in that conversation. I know a lot of people would put Montana in the mix. I've always had a soft spot for Elway, but he probably had too much Favre-y recklessness in him. But I think all of those dudes have been, at parts of their careers, better quarterbacks than Brady ever was.