Brady is Great, but how many QB's would win at that level playing for the Hoodie?

 

Brady has only been considered the Best QB in the League 2 times in his career (2007 and 2010) neither of which were Super Bowl Winning Seasons.

Can you be the GOAT and only be considered the Best at your position 2 times in 14 years?

That's an interesting point.

 

And personally I only thought Brady deserved the MVP for his second Superbowl win. Potentially 2 when Branch won it.

 

I think another interesting question is who made who's career? Brady or Hoodie? I think Brady but that is a whole other debate.

That's an interesting point.

 

And personally I only thought Brady deserved the MVP for his second Superbowl win. Potentially 2 when Branch won it.

 

I think another interesting question is who made who's career? Brady or Hoodie? I think Brady but that is a whole other debate.

 

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Why does it have to be one or the other?

 

It doesn't. Your answer could be both, I guess.

That's an interesting point.

 

And personally I only thought Brady deserved the MVP for his second Superbowl win. Potentially 2 when Branch won it.

 

I think another interesting question is who made who's career? Brady or Hoodie? I think Brady but that is a whole other debate.

 

I would say Brady made Hoodies career. Only because Hoodie failed in Cleveland, and was not off to a hot start in New England until Brady took over. Shoot the year the Pats won their first super bowl, the Bengals beat the Patriots to start that year when Bledsoe was the starter. It wasn't until he got hurt the next week that the Patriots and the Hoodie took off.

 

With that said I still say Hoodie is one of if not the best coach ever.

Has pretty much surpassed Manning for greatest of era. Like to Rodgers push the envelope. But Brady ios pretty much the man of this era, and is pushing for GOAT. Has a couple more big seasons and another ring and it a done deal.

Someone mentioned Rodgers and Manning.

 

Manning - It's hard for me to seriously consider a player as the best QB of all-time, or his era, if they have a losing record in the postseason. That's not to say they have to win titles, but to lose more often than not when it matters most? Not a trait I'd associate with the best. JMO.

 

Rodgers - I think Rodgers has the chance to become the best of this era, maybe all-time. He's not there yet. Definitely can get there though IMO.

I would say Brady made Hoodies career. Only because Hoodie failed in Cleveland, and was not off to a hot start in New England until Brady took over. Shoot the year the Pats won their first super bowl, the Bengals beat the Patriots to start that year when Bledsoe was the starter. It wasn't until he got hurt the next week that the Patriots and the Hoodie took off.

 

With that said I still say Hoodie is one of if not the best coach ever.

 

Really not winning in Cleveland is an argument? No one has won in Cleveland. Once Hoodie got control of all personnel decisions he's been pretty dang good.

 

Look at the number of scrubs the PAT's have taken and been able to win with on both sides of the ball...Hoodie deserves a lot of the credit for that.

Question also about back then. However often did players change on those teams through the 10 years? Did they have quite as much change on roster each year like teams do today? Over those 10 years did he have to play with many different players, many different receivers to throw to, etc? With it being only 2 teams making it, all it would take is one team happening to put together a great roster and then you could see a dominate run like that. I have no clue how often people changed teams back then, but if I had to guess most players probably stayed on the same team. So you say why is it that no one else during that time did what he did. Well that answer may be because that team was put together the best out of everyone because they got to stay mostly together through out that time period.

 

Brady has won at a great clip and made and won Super Bowls throughout his career now and with a roster that is always changing.

 

The issue I have with that way of thinking, whether a team gets new players or stays practically the same is that you still give the QB too much credit for teams success. Brady wasn't the reason many times that the Pats were successful. They had great defenses in many of those years. Too many times people have said Brady didn't have any great WR's or RB's when "he" won. Well in those years it was usually the defense which was the best part of the Patriots team. The 2 SB's the Pats lost under Brady were probably the best offensive players he has ever had, yet he couldn't win with them.

 

Going back to the original question though, during the 10 year span I'm sure there were different players seeing how even today the avg lifespan for a NFL player staying in the league is just over 3 years. Back then they didn't have the rehab and Dr's like they have today so I would bet the avg career was around the same if not less.

It doesn't. Your answer could be both, I guess.

 

The same question could be asked of Montana and Walsh, Graham :wave: and Brown, Staubach and Landry. Wherever you have that great combination.

Someone mentioned Rodgers and Manning.

 

Manning - It's hard for me to seriously consider a player as the best QB of all-time, or his era, if they have a losing record in the postseason. That's not to say they have to win titles, but to lose more often than not when it matters most? Not a trait I'd associate with the best. JMO.

 

Rodgers - I think Rodgers has the chance to become the best of this era, maybe all-time. He's not there yet. Definitely can get there though IMO.

 

This is pretty much where I'm at.

Someone mentioned Rodgers and Manning.

 

Manning - It's hard for me to seriously consider a player as the best QB of all-time, or his era, if they have a losing record in the postseason. That's not to say they have to win titles, but to lose more often than not when it matters most? Not a trait I'd associate with the best. JMO.

 

Rodgers - I think Rodgers has the chance to become the best of this era, maybe all-time. He's not there yet. Definitely can get there though IMO.

 

You are again putting too much emphasis on titles. Titles come more to those teams that have the better supporting cast around the QB and that includes coaching.

 

People bring up Peyton's record in the post season, but how many times have the Colts been to the Super Bowl since he left? Same team practically as when he left. How many times did Denver make it to the Super Bowl before Peyton got to Denver?

That's because to most people he doesn't belong in the conversation.

 

I agree with that statement. Now the question is whether those who think he doesn't belong in the conversation are wise in their assessment. Read Peter King. Read the other book I mentioned. Watch film the history of the game. Cleveland Brown had a wide-open offense in comparison to the NFL in 1950. West Coast offense... Bill Walsh via Paul Brown.

You are again putting too much emphasis on titles. Titles come more to those teams that have the better supporting cast around the QB and that includes coaching.

 

People bring up Peyton's record in the post season, but how many times have the Colts been to the Super Bowl since he left? Same team practically as when he left. How many times did Denver make it to the Super Bowl before Peyton got to Denver?

 

I'm putting no onus on titles. I even said, you don't have to win titles. How is that putting any emphasis on titles?

That's an interesting point.

 

And personally I only thought Brady deserved the MVP for his second Superbowl win. Potentially 2 when Branch won it.

 

I think another interesting question is who made who's career? Brady or Hoodie? I think Brady but that is a whole other debate.

I think Drew Bledsoe made both their careers. If it wasn't for Drew getting hurt to set the path for both of their successful careers. I also think Belichick had more to do with Brady's career at first due to his cheating which won games that Brady got credit for. :sssh:

I'm putting no onus on titles. I even said, you don't have to win titles. How is that putting any emphasis on titles?

 

Sure you are, when you post this

 

"Manning - It's hard for me to seriously consider a player as the best QB of all-time, or his era, if they have a losing record in the postseason."

 

Sounds like you are looking at playoff success as a major weighing point of who you would consider the best.