Does another Superbowl win cement Tom Brady as the GOAT?

[bobandweave]

Two more victories is all that separates Tom Brady from becoming the winningest Superbowl QB in the Superbowl era. One more Superbowl win would mark Brady's 5th championship. Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana, and Tom Brady are tied now with 4 victories a piece and no one in the history of the game has ever won 5.

 

Should the Patriots win Superbowl 51 does this achievement cement Tom Brady as the GOAT aka greatest of all time to you?

[TSO]

He already was in my mind, but yeah. Just more so. 

[Vilandil Tasardur]

I just really think that anyone who things he isn't already is pure hatin'. He doesn't have the raw numbers that some of the other guys do, but he has shown that if asked to be that kind of QB (2007) he can have the type of season.

[Mr. Sinister]

Yeah... Already the goat. To go on this ki d of run during the free agency era, is beyond the pale

 

Winning a 5th one would solidify him as a sporting icon. Where he ranks in that realm would make for a far more interesting discussion imo

 

He will probably go down as the last legendary traditional pocket passed as well. The guys playing QB in this new age, are mutants, and can all move well (using it to their advantage is a different story, obviously)

[Voice_of_Reason]

I think he's already there.  

 

But in my opinion, Joe Cool is still the best SB performer of all time.  No INTs in 4 SBs.  Lead a legendary TD drive after spotting John Candy in the stands.  Just as clutch as they come. 

 

Brady has had some "eh" SB's. And he let Eli beat him twice.  (Ok, not really Eli, but you get the point)

 

I can't imagine Joe letting the Giants get the better of him in 2 SBs.  Especially the one after they went 16-0.

 

[Rey713]

Dude is 39 and playing like a prime QB. 4 rings, 6 appearances, MVP titles... Brady is a legend.

 

He's part of a great organization, but he still puts in the work to classify him as the GOAT.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Not for me, but it's opinion either way. He's obviously on the very short list.

[SkinsGuy]

He's already one of the greatest ever, whether he makes it to this Super Bowl or not, IMO.

 

Of course, it isn't all about Super Bowls. I think Marino is one of the best ever, and he won zero Super Bowls.

 

Is Brady the GOAT? I wouldn't say so. To me, that title still belongs to John Elway.

 

However, Brady is right there in the conversation.

[Taylor 36]

He already is.  Only those that are too filled with hate and jealousy don't see that.  

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 hour ago, Taylor 36 said:

He already is.  Only those that are too filled with hate and jealousy don't see that.  

Oh.

[skinfan2k]

Joe Montana teams were loaded with HOF talent.  Brady team's not so much

[PokerPacker]

Super Bowls/Wins are team stats.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

Montana's teams were definitely filled with way more talent, and not in the salary cap era. I also don't buy that 4-0 in a SB is better than 4-2. If you make enough, you're liable to lose some eventually. The Patriots have been a conference champion or better something like all but two of the years Brady started. That's insane in the salary cap era. 

 

I don't understand he argument for Elway. He put up amazing regular season stats but was mediocre in the post season. He's basically Drew Brees. Sure, Brees is a borderline HOFer, and sure, he's better than his awful teams have been, but he's not a GOAT candidate. (Full disclosure, I never saw Elway play in the 80s). 

 

 

[ddub52]

5 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I think he's already there.  

 

But in my opinion, Joe Cool is still the best SB performer of all time.  No INTs in 4 SBs.  Lead a legendary TD drive after spotting John Candy in the stands.  Just as clutch as they come. 

 

Brady has had some "eh" SB's. And he let Eli beat him twice.  (Ok, not really Eli, but you get the point)

 

I can't imagine Joe letting the Giants get the better of him in 2 SBs.  Especially the one after they went 16-0.

 

In both of those Super Bowls he put his team ahead with 2 minutes remaining and the defense blew it.

[Busch1724]

He'll bury the other QBs, put cement on it, and then should put a statue over top of the others. He's already the GOAT. This will provide separation. To make 6 S.B. alone, and short of two plays by his defense; he'd have 6. 

[Taylor703]

17 hours ago, Vilandil Tasardur said:

Montana's teams were definitely filled with way more talent, and not in the salary cap era. I also don't buy that 4-0 in a SB is better than 4-2. If you make enough, you're liable to lose some eventually. The Patriots have been a conference champion or better something like all but two of the years Brady started. That's insane in the salary cap era. 

 

I don't understand he argument for Elway. He put up amazing regular season stats but was mediocre in the post season. He's basically Drew Brees. Sure, Brees is a borderline HOFer, and sure, he's better than his awful teams have been, but he's not a GOAT candidate. (Full disclosure, I never saw Elway play in the 80s). 

 

 

Elway did not put up amazing regular season stats.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Super Bowl are a terrible way to judge one QB in my opinion.  Now I will say this probably cements Belicheat as the GOAT.  I think the pats record without Brady hurts him.  The team can perform without him.  There are several other QBs that I believe would have done the same on that team so to me, that hurts him in this regard.  I'd still put him top 10, maybe top 5 all time though.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

6 hours ago, Taylor703 said:

Elway did not put up amazing regular season stats.

Then why is everyone obsessed with him as a GOAT candidate? If he didn't have crazy stats (like Marino), and he's 2-4 in superbowls, why are we talking about him?

 

4 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Super Bowl are a terrible way to judge one QB in my opinion.  Now I will say this probably cements Belicheat as the GOAT.  I think the pats record without Brady hurts him.  The team can perform without him.  There are several other QBs that I believe would have done the same on that team so to me, that hurts him in this regard.  I'd still put him top 10, maybe top 5 all time though.

I think I agree in as much as we can all concur that "Bradshaw has 4" is pretty worthless. But I think it's fair to question why someone like Phillip Rivers hasn't won a ring. I'd say he's much closer to Drew Brees than he is to Carson Palmer, but his career won't show that when it's all said and done.

 

I also think it's a really interesting conversation to have about Rodgers, as he isn't in any way demonstrably more than Favre. Everyone says Favre is one of the most over rated QBs in history. He's essentially a dude who amassed a crap ton of stats and managed to win one ring. Rodgers isn't much different to this point in his career. And Favre got those stats in an era when you never threw more than 30-35 times a game. Rodgers throws that much by half time.

[Mr. Sinister]

I don't think Brady gets a fair shake when it comes to 2008. In 2007 The Patriots had the greatest offense of all time... With weapons all over the field. They also went 16-0.

 

In 2008 they went from 16-0 to 11-5, a five game difference. That's the difference between 13-3 (first round bye type record ) and 8-8, basically average, and generally not even worthy of a 6 seed.  They dropped 7 spots in offensive ranking, and dipped by more than 11 points in the points scored category. It's simply a flawed argument, and if anything, should further illustrate Tom Brady's impact

 

They went from a potentially legendary team to just another good team among many, unable to separate from the pack.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

Brady is the GOAT for me.  He reminds me of Tiger Woods/Michael Jordan in that he has the uncanny ability to continually find ways to motivate himself.  Being drafted in the 6th round grinds his gears, etc.  He has that eternal chip on his shoulder.

 

Montana is 2 for me.  His superbowls were impressive, but that win over Buddy Ryan's defensive juggernaut Oilers when he was in KC was a reminder of the beast that he was.  Buddy blitzed all day, and an aging Montana burned him at every turn.  Keith Cash spiked/threw the ball into Buddy Ryan's face on a banner in the endzone after a TD.  Still one of the coolest TD celebrations/outbursts I've ever seen. (1:22 mark)

 

 

[PokerPacker]

4 hours ago, Vilandil Tasardur said:

I also think it's a really interesting conversation to have about Rodgers, as he isn't in any way demonstrably more than Favre. Everyone says Favre is one of the most over rated QBs in history. He's essentially a dude who amassed a crap ton of stats and managed to win one ring. Rodgers isn't much different to this point in his career. And Favre got those stats in an era when you never threw more than 30-35 times a game. Rodgers throws that much by half time.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_rating_career.htm

[Vilandil Tasardur]

7 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_rating_career.htm

I grew up a Packers fan before moving to DC and going to games in my teens. You don't have to tell me that Rodgers is better by the "eye test". But when it comes to legacy, he hasn't actually "done more". And he certainly hasn't done more with what I would argue has been equivalent. 

 

Brett never had a receiving class even close to what Rodgers has. His best receiving class was Donald Driver and Javon Walker; in Walker held out the one year they could have been special. Years later he had Driver and Jennings. 

 

And this is not to defend Favre (who I think is overly criticized a bit but merits most of it.). Like I said, I think they are good examples to talk about in the context of how much rings matter for a QB. We all think that by the time Rodgers hangs it up his numbers will be there. And we all think he's better per the eye test. But from a legacy stand point I'm not really sure he has accomplished much (unless he wins another; which I think I'm rooting for. At least to get there). 

[PokerPacker]

43 minutes ago, Vilandil Tasardur said:

I grew up a Packers fan before moving to DC and going to games in my teens. You don't have to tell me that Rodgers is better by the "eye test". But when it comes to legacy, he hasn't actually "done more". And he certainly hasn't done more with what I would argue has been equivalent. 

 

Brett never had a receiving class even close to what Rodgers has. His best receiving class was Donald Driver and Javon Walker; in Walker held out the one year they could have been special. Years later he had Driver and Jennings. 

 

And this is not to defend Favre (who I think is overly criticized a bit but merits most of it.). Like I said, I think they are good examples to talk about in the context of how much rings matter for a QB. We all think that by the time Rodgers hangs it up his numbers will be there. And we all think he's better per the eye test. But from a legacy stand point I'm not really sure he has accomplished much (unless he wins another; which I think I'm rooting for. At least to get there). 

You said that Rodgers isn't in any way demonstrably more.  I didn't say anything about an eye test.  I merely linked to the list of career QB Ratings, which Rodgers has by far the top spot in history; the only one to break 100.  Seems like you're judging 'demonstrability' purely on Super Bowl Rings.

[Rufus T Firefly]

16 hours ago, Mr. Sinister said:

I don't think Brady gets a fair shake when it comes to 2008. In 2007 The Patriots had the greatest offense of all time... With weapons all over the field. They also went 16-0.

 

In 2008 they went from 16-0 to 11-5, a five game difference. That's the difference between 13-3 (first round bye type record ) and 8-8, basically average, and generally not even worthy of a 6 seed.  They dropped 7 spots in offensive ranking, and dipped by more than 11 points in the points scored category. It's simply a flawed argument, and if anything, should further illustrate Tom Brady's impact

 

They went from a potentially legendary team to just another good team among many, unable to separate from the pack.

And the year after that went 10-6. So, on what basis do we assume the 2008 Patriots with Brady would be the 16-0 2007 version rather than the 10-6 2009 version?

[Mr. Sinister]

40 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

And the year after that went 10-6. 

 

Irrelevant. Two years removed from that 2007 team, they had begun phasing out several key players, along with player retirements, losing their GM and OC, and Brady adjusting to his repaired knee. It's fair to expect a dip, one year removed from 2008, and two years removed from 2007, even though they still managed to capture a 3rd seed. Either way it is pointless because it does not address my point  about Brady's potential effect on the 2008 Patriots, specifically 

 

Quote

So, on what basis do we assume the 2008 Patriots with Brady would be the 16-0 2007 version rather than the 10-6 2009 version?

 

The fact that they returned basically the same team in 2008, minus the greatest player in the game?

 

 

The fact that 2008 was too small of a sample size to even begin to determine what they could or could not have been without him, considering that throughout the continuous changes to the roster, Brady's been the one constant, playing at an elite level, and just last year got his team to an AFC championship despite his o-line being in shambles most of that year?

 

I think the more interesting question would be how do you think Cassell would've done with the 2009 Patriots compared to Brady, seeing as the Patriots were then mortals, even with Brady at the helm.