http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=9665558 <span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%"> Is Brady the best quarterback who ever played? </span>By John Powers The Boston Globe Friday, February 1, 2008 PHOENIX, Arizona: Even now, after three rings and a season that is one victory shy of unprecedented perfection, the man shakes his head when you put him alongside Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw and the other immortals in the signal-calling pantheon. "Those guys, as far as I'm concerned, are in a league of their own," Tom Brady said. And yet, if the New England Patriots beat the New York Giants in Super Bowl XLII on Sunday night, their quarterback will join Montana and Bradshaw as the only four-time winners of football's ultimate game. And since a victory also would cap a flawless season, Brady could well be considered the best who has ever played. "If Tom wins this game and is part of a team which went undefeated in 19 games, then it strengthens his argument," said the former Dallas Cowboys quarterback Troy Aikman, who won three Super Bowls and who lists Montana as his No. 1. Comparing quarterbacks from different eras is an inexact science. Bradshaw and the Pittsburgh Steelers won their four titles in the 1970s, Montana and the San Francisco 49ers in the '80s. Since then, the NFL has added expansion teams, gone to free agency, adopted a salary cap and changed its scheduling to promote parity. Its players are bigger, stronger, and faster than ever. What Brady, Montana and Bradshaw have in common are the champion's intangibles: leadership, competitiveness, calm, heart, toughness and unshakable optimism. What sets Brady apart, though, is that almost nobody envisioned him as a superstar. Bradshaw was the top pick in the 1970 draft. Montana piloted Notre Dame to the national championship in 1977. Brady was a sixth-round pick out of Michigan, the 199th player taken in 2000. All the Patriots wanted Brady to do was run a scout team. He was fourth man on the depth chart as a rookie, an unknown face with a thin résumé. "When he walked into the locker room I was like, 'Who is this skinny little kid?' " wide receiver Troy Brown recalled. But Coach Bill Belichick quickly noticed Brady's knack for command and control. "You could really see some of Tom's leadership taking over at that point, even though it was with other rookies," he said. "You could see him handle the team, handle the call, getting people lined up and making sure everybody knew what to do." Nobody in the locker room worked harder or studied more diligently, then or now, than Brady. He was driven, he later acknowledged, by the insecurity of the perennial backup, the kid who couldn't play on a winless high school freshman team, who began at Michigan as a seventh-stringer. His obsessiveness, though, moved him up the ladder. By the end of his rookie season, he was No. 2. When Drew Bledsoe went down early in 2001, Brady coolly took over. Once the Patriots upset the St. Louis Rams for their first title, it was his offense, his era. The kid who'd grown up wearing a Montana jersey was on the same path as "Joe Cool" himself. Yet the first ring simply stoked his hunger for a second and a third. There is always another film clip to watch, another bit of strategy to discuss, another technique to perfect. "He is hard to coach," Belichick conceded, "because he is so well-prepared and knows his job so thoroughly that you have to be prepared just to deal with him on his level." Eight years of compulsive fine-tuning have made Brady a master of his craft. No quarterback today has his evolved awareness of time and space; none is better at sorting out multiple options and executing decisions. "The things he does amazes me," said Jimmy Johnson, who coached the Cowboys to consecutive Super Bowl triumphs in the early 1990s. "I talk to Bradshaw and I always preface it by saying, 'Now Terry, I know how great you were, but. . . .' Tom Brady is so knowledgeable about the offense and where the open receivers are. Back in the shotgun, which is so beneficial for him, he is able to get rid of that football even with a free rusher." Brady has a Zen master's gift for slowing down and simplifying a rapid and chaotic environment. "He's calm in the pocket," Giants quarterback Eli Manning said. "He has a great feel for how much time he has. He's never thrown off. He's fun to watch." And maddeningly difficult to catch, particularly with a formidable line protecting him. More importantly, Brady can perform under extreme pressure. From the time he led his mates down the field for the game-ending field goal that beat the Rams for New England's first Super Bowl triumph, he has been able to keep the chains moving while the clock is ticking, just as Montana could. The immortals in the pantheon - Bart Starr, Johnny Unitas, Joe Namath, John Elway, Bradshaw, Montana and the rest - all had that unflappability, especially when the stakes were highest. If Unitas invented the two-minute drill, Brady has turned it into a fine art. He has played beat-the-clock twice at the Super Bowl and won both times. Montana was 33 when he won his fourth title. Bradshaw was 31. Brady is only 30. He's healthy and he's playing for the same coach in the same system with a better team than he started with. By the time he's done, he may need a thumb-sized ring.
The best quarterback? No, I wouldn't say that. The best playoff performing quarterback? That's also extremely debatable. I'm not ready to crown Tom Brady anything just yet. You still have to put Montana and Bradshaw ahead of him until he wins this game Sunday at least.
I won't crown him as the best QB ever, but he's going to be up there when he retires. He's gotten better and better each year and I think will continue that trend, even if he doesn't ever have a season like this again. Now, as for the best playoff QB ever, I would actually say he is. He's what, 15-2 in his career postseason? Plus he's looking for his fourth ring, something only a couple QBs can say they've done. And you know what, I don't think he'll even be close to being done winning rings after this one. So best playoff QB, yes, but best QB ever, that'll be something to debate when he retires.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Moo2K4 @ Feb 2 2008, 11:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I won't crown him as the best QB ever, but he's going to be up there when he retires. He's gotten better and better each year and I think will continue that trend, even if he doesn't ever have a season like this again. Now, as for the best playoff QB ever, I would actually say he is. He's what, 15-2 in his career postseason? Plus he's looking for his fourth ring, something only a couple QBs can say they've done. And you know what, I don't think he'll even be close to being done winning rings after this one. So best playoff QB, yes, but best QB ever, that'll be something to debate when he retires.</div> He's 14-2 Moo. ;( Well if we're judging QBs just by Win/Loss record and disregarding what help they might have gotten from their defense and the fact that Brady had average stats in the playoffs in most of those games, than yes he is the best playoff QB. However, Joe Montana tore up the league statistically in the playoffs before Jerry Rice was on the roster, so he's easily ahead of Brady if one takes individual play into account. Other QBs (yeah you know who) haven't been as fortunate to lead their teams to just 20 points in a playoff game or Superbowl and get a victory. Peyton Manning and others have better stats (Adjusted yards per pass) in the playoffs. Brady will always be one of the best of course.
I lived in the SF Bay Area for about 15 years, during the time when Joe Montana led the team and then Steve Young. I grew up in Chicago where they show Notre Dame football every Saturday and saw Montana play then, too. I used to argue with the fans there that Young was the greatest QB who ever played. They'd argue that Montana led the team to all those comeback wins and to Superbowls. I'd argue that ANY decent QB should have led the team to those Superbowl victories and that the comebacks shouldn't have been needed if the QB was doing his job! Montana was surrounded by talented players at all the skill positions, and the 49ers had one of the top defensive teams year after year. Troy Aikman, who was a better QB, also had that kind of talent, led his team to 3 Superbowl championships, and they didn't have to come back to win games. He simply did his job and the team got leads they were supposed to and didn't give them up. The 49ers weren't a product of Montana's play, though I do acknowledge he was a fine QB. It was the genius of Bill Walsh that made that team. He built the strong defense, and recognized Montana's limited physical abilities and built the west coast offense to take advantage of his strengths and hide his weaknesses. His biggest strengths were the "intangible" things that are talked about in the above article. Everyone knows about the west coast offense, but maybe not about how the 49ers ran it. The wide receivers ran short crossing patterns and set (illegal) picks for one another. All Montana had to do was hit an open man 5 yards past the line of scrimmage and it turned into big gains often enough. If the stats were kept so QBs got passing yards for the part of plays where the ball was in the air and receiers got receiving yards for yards after the catch, a 4000 yard season for Montana would have been 500 yards passing and 3500 yards for the receivers. The offensive system was so good that Montana's backup, Jeff Kemp, got to play a stretch of games during a Montana injury and put up spectacular numbers - 6 games, 1500 yards passing, 60% completion rate, and 11 touchdowns. After leaving SF for the Seahawks, he never again approached anything close to that kind of success. It was the system that made him good, just as it made Montana look better than he truly was. Kemp wasn't the only (lesser) backup in SF who had that kind of success. So why Young? He had all the attributes you want in a QB. He was big. He was strong. He could throw the ball 70 yards downfield with accuracy. He could scramble to avoid sacks. He could run. He is an intellectual (he got his law degree in 1994 while playing football as a career). Young was drafted by Tampa Bay, which was a downright horrible team in every respect at the time. He was highly touted and it was huge news and a really big deal when he signed to play in the upstart USFL for the LA Distress (ok, I mock their name). He ended up in Tampa Bay where he was a serious disappointment. At the age of 26, he was traded to the 49ers. When plugged into the SYSTEM there, he shined, and turned into a Hall of Fame player, 7 time Pro Bowler, 7 time All Pro, 2 time MVP, and won 3 Superbowls. He became the team's full-time starter at the age of 30! If it weren't for "politics" he'd have become the starter sooner, too. When he played, the team didn't need to comeback to win games. The fans demanded Superbowl victories from him and he delivered, and with less talent around him than Montana had. So I would have said Young up until now. The question is whether Brady is the best ever. No. When the article has to make the case that he's greatest because of his intangibles, then the argument isn't about his play. I think it's ironic that nobody talks about Jim Kelly when these debates come up. He led his team to the Superbowl four straight times and lost each one. The making it there four straight is a remarkable thing, and something I attribute to his great play. Regardless of the outcome of the final game.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 2 2008, 11:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I lived in the SF Bay Area for about 15 years, during the time when Joe Montana led the team and then Steve Young. I grew up in Chicago where they show Notre Dame football every Saturday and saw Montana play then, too. I used to argue with the fans there that Young was the greatest QB who ever played. They'd argue that Montana led the team to all those comeback wins and to Superbowls. I'd argue that ANY decent QB should have led the team to those Superbowl victories and that the comebacks shouldn't have been needed if the QB was doing his job! Montana was surrounded by talented players at all the skill positions, and the 49ers had one of the top defensive teams year after year. Troy Aikman, who was a better QB, also had that kind of talent, led his team to 3 Superbowl championships, and they didn't have to come back to win games. He simply did his job and the team got leads they were supposed to and didn't give them up. The 49ers weren't a product of Montana's play, though I do acknowledge he was a fine QB. It was the genius of Bill Walsh that made that team. He built the strong defense, and recognized Montana's limited physical abilities and built the west coast offense to take advantage of his strengths and hide his weaknesses. His biggest strengths were the "intangible" things that are talked about in the above article. Everyone knows about the west coast offense, but maybe not about how the 49ers ran it. The wide receivers ran short crossing patterns and set (illegal) picks for one another. All Montana had to do was hit an open man 5 yards past the line of scrimmage and it turned into big gains often enough. If the stats were kept so QBs got passing yards for the part of plays where the ball was in the air and receiers got receiving yards for yards after the catch, a 4000 yard season for Montana would have been 500 yards passing and 3500 yards for the receivers. The offensive system was so good that Montana's backup, Jeff Kemp, got to play a stretch of games during a Montana injury and put up spectacular numbers - 6 games, 1500 yards passing, 60% completion rate, and 11 touchdowns. After leaving SF for the Seahawks, he never again approached anything close to that kind of success. It was the system that made him good, just as it made Montana look better than he truly was. Kemp wasn't the only (lesser) backup in SF who had that kind of success. So why Young? He had all the attributes you want in a QB. He was big. He was strong. He could throw the ball 70 yards downfield with accuracy. He could scramble to avoid sacks. He could run. He is an intellectual (he got his law degree in 1994 while playing football as a career). Young was drafted by Tampa Bay, which was a downright horrible team in every respect at the time. He was highly touted and it was huge news and a really big deal when he signed to play in the upstart USFL for the LA Distress (ok, I mock their name). He ended up in Tampa Bay where he was a serious disappointment. At the age of 26, he was traded to the 49ers. When plugged into the SYSTEM there, he shined, and turned into a Hall of Fame player, 7 time Pro Bowler, 7 time All Pro, 2 time MVP, and won 3 Superbowls. He became the team's full-time starter at the age of 30! If it weren't for "politics" he'd have become the starter sooner, too. When he played, the team didn't need to comeback to win games. The fans demanded Superbowl victories from him and he delivered, and with less talent around him than Montana had. So I would have said Young up until now. The question is whether Brady is the best ever. No. When the article has to make the case that he's greatest because of his intangibles, then the argument isn't about his play. I think it's ironic that nobody talks about Jim Kelly when these debates come up. He led his team to the Superbowl four straight times and lost each one. The making it there four straight is a remarkable thing, and something I attribute to his great play. Regardless of the outcome of the final game.</div> Ah yes Young, everyone overlooks him. You made very fair points about him, he's just as good as Brady. Well first, you should know I don't judge Qbs blindly just by rings, so I respect your post. Montana also gets too much credit, but really, Troy Aikman was better? How so? He was on a loaded roster and even then was not that elite empirically.
I say Aikman was better because he could throw the ball accurately beyond 20 yards (physical skills) and because he did the things his team needed him to do to win games going away. He wasn't known as great at leading his teams to comeback victories because his teams didn't get behind when they shouldn't.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 2 2008, 11:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I say Aikman was better because he could throw the ball accurately beyond 20 yards (physical skills) and because he did the things his team needed him to do to win games going away. He wasn't known as great at leading his teams to comeback victories because his teams didn't get behind when they shouldn't.</div> I agree with you on many points but there is nothing specific you have pointed to that would suggest Aikman was overall better. Sure he can do some things better, but then Montana has a better body of work in the post-season (just looking at his individual accomplishments, not Superbowl Rings). BTW, Peyton is my pick along with Young, Montana or Marino (early on in his career at least) for best QBs. Young is in Montana's class because he started later on in his career, and has the monster numbers in the playoffs and regular season.
Aikman won 3 Superbowls. That's a pretty good body of work in the playoffs, no? He played 12 seasons. He averaged 200 yards / game passing yards. 32,000 yards in 160 games. Completed 62% of his passes for his career. He made it look easy so he doesn't get the credit he deserves.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 2 2008, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Aikman won 3 Superbowls. That's a pretty good body of work in the playoffs, no? He played 12 seasons. He averaged 200 yards / game passing yards. 32,000 yards in 160 games. Completed 62% of his passes for his career. He made it look easy so he doesn't get the credit he deserves.</div> Aikman has a good body of work in the playoffs but not in the regular season. He had a loaded team but his stats were never highly impressive. 200 yards a game is mediocre and so are his non-volume based statistics (the more intelligent statistics). Completion percentage is not nearly as important as yards per pass either. All you can talk about are intangibles and that does not appear enough to account for such a large statistical gap. In Addition, let me take a moment to talk about Michael Irvin: For the number of passes Troy would throw per year, Michael irvin's stats are the second or third best of all time after Moss and Rice. For example, Troy threw just 438 passes in 1995, yet Irvin had 1600 yards. That is freakishly incredibly yet Troy's efficiency has rarely been described in that fashion aside from 1993 when Troy only threw 392 passes or 4-6 playoff games. Although Troy is better than Brady in the post-season, so I'll give him credit for that.
I think first thing you need to do, is eliminate Brady from the discussion since his team cheated its way to all of the sucess. Then you simply look at the passing #s and you know that the best playoff QB ever is Montana. 4 super bowls, no interceptions, no argument. Best QB ever is a bit harder. Dan has great #s. Farve cheated to get strahan stats, so i cant help but think others did the same for him, so he is out as a cheater. Unitas had fantastic #s for the era, and was a good postseason QB. Now that Manning has won a super bowl, he is right there in discussion. I would say when Manning is done, it will be Manning, til then Unitas.
Its not Tommy Boy and its not who you think I might say. Its a toss up between Peyton & Favre. I will not rehash the running gag from the Forums regarding #4. My rationale; Rings & records.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 2 2008, 11:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Moo2K4 @ Feb 2 2008, 11:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I won't crown him as the best QB ever, but he's going to be up there when he retires. He's gotten better and better each year and I think will continue that trend, even if he doesn't ever have a season like this again. Now, as for the best playoff QB ever, I would actually say he is. He's what, 15-2 in his career postseason? Plus he's looking for his fourth ring, something only a couple QBs can say they've done. And you know what, I don't think he'll even be close to being done winning rings after this one. So best playoff QB, yes, but best QB ever, that'll be something to debate when he retires.</div> He's 14-2 Moo. ;( Well if we're judging QBs just by Win/Loss record and disregarding what help they might have gotten from their defense and the fact that Brady had average stats in the playoffs in most of those games, than yes he is the best playoff QB.</div> Montana's 49ers had a defense that ranked in the top 10 in 8 of his 10 years there. Brady's Patriots have had a top 10 defense 4 out of his 7 years as starter. Montana had Rice for the majority of his career. Brady has had a long line of below average receivers (until this year, obviously). Montana was handing the ball off to Roger Craig. Brady has handed the ball off to Antowain Smith, Corey Dillon and Maroney. Please explain yourself because I don't see how Brady has had more help. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>However, Joe Montana tore up the league statistically in the playoffs before Jerry Rice was on the roster, so he's easily ahead of Brady if one takes individual play into account.</div> Montana before Rice: 90.4 QB rating, 7.4 Y/A Brady: 92.9 QB rating, 7.2 Y/A <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Other QBs (yeah you know who) haven't been as fortunate to lead their teams to just 20 points in a playoff game or Superbowl and get a victory. Peyton Manning and others have better stats (Adjusted yards per pass) in the playoffs. Brady will always be one of the best of course.</div> Y/A is the only stat Peyton has on Brady when it comes to the playoffs. Could the fact that Brady has played so many home games in the playoffs alter that stat a bit? I mean, I know you're from Florida, but I can tell you myself that the weather is pretty bad here in New England when the calender says January.
Thrilla, can you even explain to me what QB rating is? No I didn't think so so don't bring up such a joke formula. It merely gives an indication of what tier one is at, but it certainly isn't the end all. It improperly weighs Completion percentage and TD-INT ratio. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Feb 2 2008, 08:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Montana's 49ers had a defense that ranked in the top 10 in 8 of his 10 years there. Brady's Patriots have had a top 10 defense 4 out of his 7 years as starter. Montana had Rice for the majority of his career. Brady has had a long line of below average receivers (until this year, obviously). Montana was handing the ball off to Roger Craig. Brady has handed the ball off to Antowain Smith, Corey Dillon and Maroney. Please explain yourself because I don't see how Brady has had more help.</div> How did he have more help? Because with more pathetic numbers Brady has gone on Superbowl Runs and won playoff games with an Adjusted Yards per attempt of 6.2 (that translates to a QB Rating of 85 to put things in perspective since the average rating is about 83). Montana has easily better individual numbers. With Rice, without him, in the playoffs, in the Superbowl. Brady's screwed unfortunately. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Montana before Rice: 90.4 QB rating, 7.4 Y/A Brady: 92.9 QB rating, 7.2 Y/A</div> Do you remember the little rule changes in 2004? Don't insult Montana's numbers like this, he even has a more efficient year per pass than brady had in 2007. Wow What is this? You included Randy Moss's season in your calculations, the guy that has 23 TDs in a single season, the guy that had to break a record receiving for Brady to be even close to breaking Peyton's passing record. Even so, QB rating underestimates Montana's value because his real QB rating in 1984 should have been 110, after properly converting his stats into adjusted yards per attempt and then converting that value back into true QB rating. Adjusted yards per pass isn't just Yards per pass btw. It has been calculated almost precisly that an interception costs on average 45-47 yards of field position, whereas a TD is a matter of chance and many of them are short passes. thus they are only worth 10 yards of field position. This is a completely objective and in depth conclusion the "Hidden game of Football" and many sites came to. Passing Yards per attempt correlates the most with winning, more than having a great ground game or whatever else. Qb rating came to the conclusion, with no empirical analysis, just on a whim, that Completion percentage = TD-INT, etc. It's insulting to anyone that knows about it. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Y/A is the only stat Peyton has on Brady when it comes to the playoffs. Could the fact that Brady has played so many home games in the playoffs alter that stat a bit? I mean, I know you're from Florida, but I can tell you myself that the weather is pretty bad here in New England when the calender says January.</div> I believe whether or not Brady plays in good weather, that his statistics have been consistently just above average in the post-season, so your point is? And Yards per attempt empirically correlates the most with winning so it isn't the same as leading slightly in Completion Percentage for example. Many empirical articles have confirmed this, and pro-football-reference has written dozens of articles on the subject.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Feb 2 2008, 04:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Its not Tommy Boy and its not who you think I might say. Its a toss up between Peyton & Favre. I will not rehash the running gag from the Forums regarding #4. My rationale; Rings & records.</div> I'm good with Peyton and Favre being better than Montana as well. Best ever? Not so sure.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 2 2008, 08:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And Yards per attempt empirically correlates the most with winning so it isn't the same as leading slightly in Completion Percentage for example. Many empirical analysis have confirmed this, and pro-football-reference has written many articles about this.</div> No..super bowls correlate the most with winning. You haven't won a damn thing if you lost in the AFC Championship game, which I believe Peyton Manning has done plenty of times. When you can name every time that a quarterback has lost in the playoffs (and he's played at least 10 games), he's a winner. I think Peyton has lost more games in the playoffs than he's won.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (playaofthegame @ Feb 2 2008, 08:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 2 2008, 08:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And Yards per attempt empirically correlates the most with winning so it isn't the same as leading slightly in Completion Percentage for example. Many empirical analysis have confirmed this, and pro-football-reference has written many articles about this.</div> No..super bowls correlate the most with winning. You haven't won a damn thing if you lost in the AFC Championship game, which I believe Peyton Manning has done plenty of times. When you can name every time that a quarterback has lost in the playoffs (and he's played at least 10 games), he's a winner. I think Peyton has lost more games in the playoffs than he's won. </div> Superbowls correlate with team success, Yards per pass correlates more with success due to <u>QB</u> play. If this discussion is just about Wins and Losses than Brady is the best. If we measure his individual performances, than he obviously isn't. Peyton's defense has lost him a lot of games, Brady's defense has saved him. Winning and Losing are somewhat random. It depends on defense and such, hence Brady throws three picks and beats the Chargers. Thus one should focus on individual performance.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 2 2008, 08:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Thrilla, can you even explain to me what QB rating is? No I didn't think so so don't bring up such a joke formula. It merely gives an indication of what tier one is at, but it certainly isn't the end all. It improperly weighs Completion percentage and TD-INT ratio.</div> It's only the most widely recognized and used statistic to determine a QBs efficiency and production. A solid majority of experts and the NFL itself use it. Just because you and stat geeks like you decided at some point that you don't like it doesn't mean its a joke. Touchdowns and interceptions are both very important statistics whether its a 1 yard screen pass into the end zone or a tipped ball interceptions. The result of the play is as significant as it gets when it comes to determining the outcome of a football game. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>How did he have more help? Because with more pathetic numbers Brady has gone on Superbowl Runs and won playoff games with an Adjusted Yards per attempt of 6.2 (that translates to a QB Rating of 85 to put things in perspective since the average rating is about 83). Montana has easily better individual numbers. With Rice, without him, in the playoffs, in the Superbowl. Brady's screwed unfortunately.</div>Again, if you want to use your stats, you need to factor in the weather, the coordinators Brady has played for (Charlie Weiss and Josh McDaniel run screen-heavy offenses), the fact that Deion Branch is the only average WR Brady has won three superbowls with, the lack of a reliable running game, etc., etc. Stat geeks need to get past the stats and realize that elite players are winning these games for a reason. You can get lucky and win a superbowl. A defense can carry a QB to a superbowl. A QB that wins three, soon to be 4, is special. No stat geek stat can get in the way of that. Montana was a great QB. I'm not saying Brady is better, just that he deserves a spot in the discussion. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Do you remember the little rule changes in 2004? Don't insult Montana's numbers like this, he even has a more efficient year per pass than brady had in 2007.</div> The stats were from Pro football refernce, so I assumed they were accurate. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Wow What is this? You included Randy Moss's season in your calculations, the guy that has 23 TDs in a single season, the guy that had to break a record receiving for Brady to be even close to breaking Peyton's passing record.</div>The same Randy Moss that was completely horrible for the last two years? It's fun to play your game. And again you don't factor weather into the equation. If Brady played in a dome, he would have had 55-60 TDs and his rating would have been 10-15 points higher. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Even so, QB rating underestimates Montana's value because his real QB rating in 1984 should have been 110, after properly converting his stats into adjusted yards per attempt and then converting that value back into true QB rating.</div>What? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Adjusted yards per pass isn't just Yards per pass btw. It has been calculated almost precisly that an interception costs on average 45-47 yards of field position, whereas a TD is a matter of chance and many of them are short passes. thus they are only worth 10 yards of field position. This is a completely objective and in depth conclusion the "Hidden game of Football" and many sites came to. Passing Yards per attempt correlates the most with winning, more than having a great ground game or whatever else.</div> You and John Hollinger should hang out. Too much wasted thought was put into that. It is sort of interesting though. Stats are meaningless when your team loses, anyway. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Qb rating came to the conclusion, with no empirical analysis, just on a whim, that Completion percentage = TD-INT, etc. It's insulting to anyone that knows about it.</div>Why, though? It's much more difficult to throw a 5 yard TD pass than it is to throw a 25 yard pass in your own territory. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I believe whether or not Brady plays in good weather, that his statistics have been consistently just above average in the post-season, so your point is? And Yards per attempt empirically correlates the most with winning so it isn't the same as leading slightly in Completion Percentage for example. Many empirical articles have confirmed this, and pro-football-reference has written dozens or articles on the subject.</div> Ok then, I guess Brady is a statistical anomaly?
With people throwing out names like Montana, Farvre, Manning and Aikman...Dont laugh at me for this but...How many QB's played in 4 straight SB's? 4 straight...I dont think anyone will ever do that again.
No, I don't believe Brady is the best ever, despite his record breaking season. I do think that Brady is one of the best to ever play though. Brady is surrounded by arguably the best supporting cast that you can give a quarterback. This is where I give credit to Randy Moss, as he has been the difference in their offense this year. I give the honor to Peyton Manning at this point. Yes, stats can tell you a lot about a QB, but there is more to it than that. We have seen Peyton do some really genius things on the field (and it's pretty much automatic for him), regardless of who he is throwing to, and what his defense is doing. The fact that Peyton doesn't prepare for defenses, but rather, defensive coordinators, tells me that he is far and away the most intelligent, and elite quarterback that we have ever seen (so far).
