I'm still not convinced that Brady is the greatest quarterback in the history of the NFL, but this particular game was the strongest argument for it so far. Not because of the comeback. Because of the rest of the team. This is by far the weakest supporting cast Brady has ever won a Superbowl with. His receivers are not particularly special, particularly with Gronk out. The defense is above average but not elite. The running backs are below average as a group, at least as runners. The offensive line is probably the most elite part of this Patriots team aside from Brady himself, and that is important given how he tends to struggle with pressure. But Brady carried this team for much of the year. Granted they won without him early in the season, but it turns out the opposition in those games wasn't as strong as we thought it was at the time. Miami worked their way into a good team, but in the first 5 games they went 1-4 with the win coming against the Browns. The Texans and Cardinals just weren't particularly exciting teams, and the Bills were a mediocre team that beat the Brady-less Pats. So going 3-1 without Brady was good, but not a huge accomplishment.
If I had the rest of a team and had to win 1 game, I still think I'd rather have Rogers than Brady. But maybe it's closer than I would have said a year ago.