Is Tom Brady greatest QB ever???

[oldgrappler]

Sorry, I have little respect for what the NFL was producing in the way of talented teams back then. I heavily favor the league of today over the past, therefore I take the modern players over the past players.

 

If I understand what you are saying... Tom Brady's achievements do not stack up to Graham's so you find a way to dismiss, not only Graham, but all of professional football based on your subjective opinion. As you stated, you "heavily favor the league of today." This allows you to maintain your opinion that Brady is the best of all-time. And what year does professional football begin to be worth considering, in your opinion?

[spindoc]

I'm nowhere near a Tom Brady fan, but to say he's not at the top of the heap is either green eyed jealousy or lack of football savvy.

[GreyFox]

I love Montana and thought Bradshaw was very good (not great) but by using that logic, you are saying it is better for your legacy to lose in the playoffs before the SB than it is to get to the SB and lose the SB. Makes no sense...

 

No, that isn't what I was saying at all. By the way, Brady has lost in the playoffs before reaching the SB plenty of times also remember.

 

What I was saying is apparently people are only looking at the number of SB's Brady has played in and using that as the overall factor. If you make it to SB's I would think it's better not to lose any of them. If you do lose some then you better have more SB victories than anyone else who ever made it there. In both instances Brady doesn't measure up to be the greatest ever. He hasn't won every SB and he also doesn't have the most wins in the SB.

 

Again, Otto Graham has the best resume out of every QB in the entire history of the professional game. If people want to anoint Brady because he made it to 6 SB's and even though he lost a couple he won 4 of them, then Graham who made it to the championship game every single season he played and won 7 of them then that would be the greatest QB ever. If you also want to say it's better to lose in the playoffs before making it to the SB according to my criteria, I would have to point out that that is wrong also. Graham never lost in a playoff game leading up to the championship game.

[oldgrappler]

Weren't there only like 10 teams back then?

 

Early 50's there were 12 NFL teams. At least your opinion has some reasoning behind it. Just taking straight odds, it is more likely that Graham would make it to the championship game than say Tom Brady or Joe Montana who played against 32 teams. That is mathematically correct. The chances were on Graham's side.

 

But making it to the championship game 10 years in a row, every year you played, and winning seven takes it out of the realm of chance. That was talent. If Brady can take his team to the championship game 10 seasons in a row and win 7 then I will say his achievement climaxes Graham's since he had to do it against more teams than Graham. That would be a fair assessment.

 

Now, which one of us should hold our breath? (Sorry for the sarcasm but I am ashamed to say that it comes naturally : )

[UKMustangFan]

If I understand what you are saying... Tom Brady's achievements do not stack up to Graham's so you find a way to dismiss, not only Graham, but all of professional football based on your subjective opinion. As you stated, you "heavily favor the league of today." This allows you to maintain your opinion that Brady is the best of all-time. And what year does professional football begin to be worth considering, in your opinion?

 

That's the beauty of opinions on subjective matters. Everyone has one, and there's no way to prove or disprove any of them.

 

FWIW, I whole-heartedly agree with 75.

[GreyFox]

Sorry, I have little respect for what the NFL was producing in the way of talented teams back then. I heavily favor the league of today over the past, therefore I take the modern players over the past players.

 

It's no ones fault you have no respect for the QB's of the past. That still doesn't give any sensible reason to ignore them anyway.

 

You may say the play of today is better, some would disagree with that simply because the game today is geared toward the success of the QB. Back when Otto and others played even going up into the late 70's and early 80's, the QB was mauled and still had to make the plays. Today's QB's get brushed by a defender and a flag is thrown.

 

I have more respect for the guys who literally got beat up every game and still won over the glass QB's of today.

Edited February 2, 2015 by GreyFox

[oldgrappler]

I'm nowhere near a Tom Brady fan, but to say he's not at the top of the heap is either green eyed jealousy or lack of football savvy.

 

Or pure logic based on the facts. He is near the top, but not at the top. Graham is sitting there all by his lonesome looking down at all the others.

[75center]

If I understand what you are saying... Tom Brady's achievements do not stack up to Graham's so you find a way to dismiss, not only Graham, but all of professional football based on your subjective opinion. As you stated, you "heavily favor the league of today." This allows you to maintain your opinion that Brady is the best of all-time. And what year does professional football begin to be worth considering, in your opinion?

 

Brady's achievements against superior competition far outweigh Graham's imo. It is subjective, as is yours. If winning a ten team league impresses you, go for it. He was certainly more successful in his era than any other QB. Just not impressed with any of the early teams in any sport when stacked up against today's players. For instance, George Mikan would not be on any top player list on my NBA team even though he dominated his era. I realize it's not fair but it's just what I believe. I won't be around in 50 years but if I were I'm sure I would think those QB's will be much more impressive than Brady. I don't really have a year when I start to believe past players stack up against modern players, it really depends on the player in question.

[75center]

It's no ones fault you have no respect for the QB's of the past. That still doesn't give any sensibvle reason to ignore them anyway.

 

You may say the play of today is better, some would disagree with that simply because the game today is geared toward the success of the QB. Back when Otto and others played even going up into the late 70's and early 80's, the QB was mauled and still had to make the plays. Today's QB's get brushed by a defender and a flag is thrown.

 

I have more respect for the guys who literally got beat up every game and still won over the glass QB's of today.

 

No doubt they were much tougher than today's QB's.

[GreyFox]

Early 50's there were 12 NFL teams. At least your opinion has some reasoning behind it. Just taking straight odds, it is more likely that Graham would make it to the championship game than say Tom Brady or Joe Montana who played against 32 teams. That is mathematically correct. The chances were on Graham's side.

 

But making it to the championship game 10 years in a row, every year you played, and winning seven takes it out of the realm of chance. That was talent. If Brady can take his team to the championship game 10 seasons in a row and win 7 then I will say his achievement climaxes Graham's since he had to do it against more teams than Graham. That would be a fair assessment.

 

Now, which one of us should hold our breath? (Sorry for the sarcasm but I am ashamed to say that it comes naturally : )

 

Also what those who simply ignore the past when Otto played, if it was that easy to do and take your team to that many championship games and win that many, then why didn't anyone else do it from that era?

 

There were less teams, but there were also a lot less teams that made it to the playoffs also. Today, and next year when they add more teams to the playoffs, just about half the teams will make it to the playoffs. Back then there were 4 teams out of 13.

 

Percentage wise, it is easier to make the playoffs today than it was back in the 50's when they had 12 and 13 teams. I need to point out also that some of those years back in the 50's only 2 teams made the playoffs and that was the championship game so out of 12 or 13 teams only 2 made the playoffs. The odds of making the playoffs were very slim.

[spindoc]

Or pure logic based on the facts. He is near the top, but not at the top. Graham is sitting there all by his lonesome looking down at all the others.

Yeah, and Ty Cobb is the greatest of all time too. Not buying someone from that era, sorry.

[UKMustangFan]

Also what those who simply ignore the past when Otto played, if it was that easy to do and take your team to that many championship games and win that many, then why didn't anyone else do it from that era?

 

There were less teams, but there were also a lot less teams that made it to the playoffs also. Today, and next year when they add more teams to the playoffs, just about half the teams will make it to the playoffs. Back then there were 4 teams out of 13.

 

I don't think anyone is ignoring anything about Graham. He was without question the best of his era. Problem is, a lot of people (myself included) don't think the players from that era would stack up against today's players.

 

Put another way, I think it's more likely that if you put Tom Brady on a team back then, that he'd duplicate Graham's success more so than if you put Graham on a team now days that he'd duplicate Brady's success.

[75center]

Also what those who simply ignore the past when Otto played, if it was that easy to do and take your team to that many championship games and win that many,There were less teams, but there were also a lot less teams that made it to the playoffs also. Today, and next year when they add more teams to the playoffs, just about half the teams will then why didn't anyone else do it from that era?

make it to the playoffs. Back then there were 4 teams out of 13.

 

Percentage wise, it is easier to make the playoffs today than it was back in the 50's when they had 12 and 13 teams. I need to point out also that some of those years back in the 50's only 2 teams made the playoffs and that was the championship game so out of 12 or 13 teams only 2 made the playoffs. The odds of making the playoffs were very slim.

 

Paul Brown. He was so far ahead of everyone else I truly believe he could have won with other QB's than Graham at the helm.

[TheDeuce]

Yeah, and Ty Cobb is the greatest of all time too. Not buying someone from that era, sorry.

 

Not a chance. Otto Graham, are we being serious right now?

[spindoc]

Not a chance. Otto Graham, are we being serious right now?

 

Sadly, yes.:ohbrother: