Is Brady the best quarterback who ever played?

Its too early to say that Brady is the best of all time. I think you have to include him in the discussion right now, but its too early to conclude that he is the best of all time. What I will say definitively is that Tom Brady is the best quarterback in the game right now.

You can use your fantasy league analysis all you want, but we all need to recognize one thing:

<div align="center"> Quarterbacks get disproportionate credit for wins and blame for losses. </div>

I know there's 11 a side and there's defese and special teams too. However, the quaterback has the most impact on a game out of anybody on the field. That fact is why a Dan Marino is in everyone’s top ten, rather than being everybody’s top one. If I am making my own team, I am picking a QB with a history of winning games…BIG games. That’s why I’m going to pick Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, Troy Aikman, Tom Brady, and John Elway before Dan Marino, Peyton Manning and Brett Favre. Yes, I realize that Manning and Favre have won a Super Bowl in their careers, but Manning’s playoff history still isn’t good and Favre’s celebrated “improvisation” causes more problems than it solves. If you want to argue running backs or wide receivers, I’ll take numbers based arguments. For quaterbacks, lets talk wins.

The case for Brady is clear. Three rings right now and he’s playing for his fourth in about 14 hours. In addition, he has numerous game winning drives throughout the playoffs and in many big regular season games, and in the Super Bowl. I know someone will attempt to discredit those by saying that some of them (including the Super Bowl ones) only lead to field goals, but try to save some face and don’t make such a foolish argument. He finally has good WRs and he put up video game stats this season. As for previous years, he made his receivers millions of dollars. Take a look at what Deion Branch is up to in Seattle. He’s the second option to Bobby Engram. Yet with Brady throwing to him, he holds Super Bowl records. Check out David Givens. I know injuries play a huge factor, but in the five games he did play since leaving Foxboro, he caught eight balls. With Brady, he’s a solid number two.

For me, the discussion includes Montana, Bradshaw, Aikman, Brady, Elway, Steve Young, and Roger Staubach. Johnny Unitas and Bart Starr probably should be in there, but I have no concept of the game they played. I can see the justification of Jim Kelly, Marino, Manning and Favre in the discussion, but I am not going to bring them up. I also put Warren Moon and Phil Sims up there.

When I think about quarterbacks, I ask myself, if the existence of humanity depended on a football game, who would I want under center? The eight I mentioned above are my best options.

 

He is one of the best ever.

Hall of fame player for sure. (if he was to retire today, he would still make it)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Feb 2 2008, 10:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>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>

Even the "experts" talk about what a joke formula it is.

And why do experts on tv use QB rating? Because it was created before Adjusted Yards per attempt in the 1960's, not because it is better nor have you proven it is. Why defend it?

You're worse than a stat geek though, you don't know what stats to look at.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>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.</div>

And when Brady had average receivers, he had average stats. With the best Receiving core around him in the history of the league, Montana and Peyton have still had more efficient seasons.

When only Brady's good weather games are accounted for in his 2007 season, Manning still has better stats than him. The dome comments you make about Peyton are generalized and poorly thought out.

No one said Brady isn't special, he's just not as special as certain QBs.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The stats were from Pro football refernce, so I assumed they were accurate.</div>

Well you didn't use Pro-football-reference's Adjusted Yard per pass page, did you? Take a look at it yourself, it's very interesting and more legitimate than QB rating.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>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>

Yeah the Same Moss that played with Andrew Walter and Aaron Brooks who had a true QB rating in the 40's. They also Got sacked 76 times, what he went through is not nearly what Brady had to go through when he had "average" receivers in 2006-2007.

Moss has had better stats than Marvin Harrison with a variety of different QBs, Brady has never had an elite season without Moss. Moss was even having a career year in Oakland in 2005 until he pulled his hamstring.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>What?</div>

His adjusted yards per pass in 84 was 8.0 The average Adjusted yard per pass is 6.0, so Montana was 1.325 times better than this. Multiply that by average QB rating (83), to get a better perspective on his numbers leaves him with 109.075 true QB rating in a more difficult era for QBs to pass.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>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>

Why are you insulting my formula? Your's is more wack. Hollinger's PER is exponentially more complicated to explain than ADY/P. Adjusted Yards per pass is simple to understand, and logical.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>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>

Even if it was more important or difficult to throw, one has to know EXACTLY how much to be rewarded for a short TD pass. Qb rating arbitrarily rewards short TD passes and gives too much credit for it (whether it's Brady or Peyton I'm talking about). A 5 yard TD pass has also been measured to be equivalent to a 15 yard throw. Where do you pull these 25 yard pass comments out of?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Ok then, I guess Brady is a statistical anomaly?</div>
So when something doesn't go in your favor it's an anomaly?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (agoo101284)</div><div class='quotemain'>I know there's 11 a side and there's defese and special teams too. However, the quaterback has the most impact on a game out of anybody on the field. That fact is why a Dan Marino is in everyone’s top ten, rather than being everybody’s top one. If I am making my own team, I am picking a QB with a history of winning games…BIG games. That’s why I’m going to pick Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, Troy Aikman, Tom Brady, and John Elway before Dan Marino, Peyton Manning and Brett Favre. Yes, I realize that Manning and Favre have won a Super Bowl in their careers, but Manning’s playoff history still isn’t good and Favre’s celebrated “improvisation” causes more problems than it solves. If you want to argue running backs or wide receivers, I’ll take numbers based arguments. For quaterbacks, lets talk wins.</div>

Manning has three GameWinning/Tying drives that his Kickers didn't complete, and has been more productive than Brady in the playoffs. Brady doesn't even have GameWinning TD drives.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 3 2008, 09:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ed the Decider @ Feb 2 2008, 11:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>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.</div>


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 2 2008, 08:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>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>



</div>

Like anyone reads your post

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 3 2008, 10:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Feb 2 2008, 10:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>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>

Even the "experts" talk about what a joke formula it is.

And why do experts on tv use QB rating? Because it was created before Adjusted Yards per attempt in the 1960's, not because it is better nor have you proven it is. Why defend it?

You're worse than a stat geek though, you don't know what stats to look at.</div>

I have never heard anybody besides you say anything bad about QB rating. Granted, I don't frequent underground stats sites, but I will believe in QB rating until I hear former players, coaches, and analysts who break down (legal) game film tell me otherwise. Your case is a legit one, but I don't think either of us know the game as well as the above mentioned, so I will continue to rely on them when it comes to which stats are useful and which ones are a joke.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And when Brady had average receivers, he had average stats. With the best Receiving core around him in the history of the league, Montana and Peyton have still had more efficient seasons.

When only Brady's good weather games are accounted for in his 2007 season, Manning still has better stats than him. The dome comments you make about Peyton are generalized and poorly thought out.

No one said Brady isn't special, he's just not as special as certain QBs.</div>

Montana and Manning never had a comparable supporting cast, so the comparison isn't there. Manning has had Harrison, who is just as good (or even better) as Rice or Moss in my eyes. Brady has had one year with comparable receivers, and it isn't fair to compare a sample size of one to the many years Montana and Manning have played with top tier receivers.

Also, give me a stat that factors in bad weather, offensive play calling (screen passes and passes to receivers behind or at the line of scrimmage are counted as running plays), and dropped balls. If you're going to define a great QB by stats, then you need to factor in these things.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Well you didn't use Pro-football-reference's Adjusted Yard per pass page, did you? Take a look at it yourself, it's very interesting and more legitimate than QB rating.</div> I will check it out.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah the Same Moss that played with Andrew Walter and Aaron Brooks who had a true QB rating in the 40's. They also Got sacked 76 times, what he went through is not nearly what Brady had to go through when he had "average" receivers in 2006-2007.

Moss has had better stats than Marvin Harrison with a variety of different QBs, Brady has never had an elite season without Moss. Moss was even having a career year in Oakland in 2005 until he pulled his hamstring.</div>

Moss has better stats than Harrison because they are two totally different types of receivers. Moss is more of a deep threat/ big play receiver. Harrison is a mixture of that and is also a possession receiver who routinely catches midrange passes in the middle of the field. If I could trade Moss for Harrison straight up, I'd do it. Harrison is much more difficult for a defense to stop, and his versatility is more valuable than anything Randy Moss is going to add to your offense.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Even if it was more important or difficult to throw, one has to know EXACTLY how much to be rewarded for a short TD pass. Qb rating arbitrarily rewards short TD passes and gives too much credit for it (whether it's Brady or Peyton I'm talking about). A 5 yard TD pass has also been measured to be equivalent to a 15 yard throw. Where do you pull these 25 yard pass comments out of?</div> Like any QB will tell you, throwing the ball inside the 10 is like turning the 6 0r 7 guys in pass coverage into 10 or 11 guys. There's only so many places a receiver can go and the defense doesn't have to cover as much ground. Passes made inside the 10 have to be completely perfect or the play will not be successful.

Pass plays in the middle of the field are designed so that defenders are spread out and 2-3 of them are taken completely out of the play. A QB has a much bigger window for his passes because defenders are spread out and most of the time he only has to factor in one defender when determining where he can or cannot place the ball.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>So when something doesn't go in your favor it's an anomaly?</div>

Well, what I mean is, I'm listening and trying to understand every point you bring up. However, I do not agree with your opinion when it comes to Brady having superior supporting casts because I believe that, in most cases, his offensive and defensive help has been equal or worse than Montana and Manning. Yet somehow a statistic that you tell me is so great at determining the differences between a winning and losing quarterback shows Brady as inadequate, in comparison to the likes of Montana and Manning. Why has he been so successful, then? I know that you'll just go right back to the better team argument, but I respectfully disagree with that, as I've already stated. I'm a huge football fan and I welcome anything new and innovative when it comes to analyzing and interpreting the game on the field, but I don't think stats tell the entire story, and I never will. There is so much more to it than that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Feb 3 2008, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I have never heard anybody besides you say anything bad about QB rating.</div>

People write about QB rating, and how Marc Bulger has a "higher" career efficiency than Dan Marino all the time (Bulger's rating doesn't take into account the inflation of the average Qb rating). You just need to read more newspaper articles.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Granted, I don't frequent underground stats sites, but I will believe in QB rating until I hear former players, coaches, and analysts who break down (legal) game film tell me otherwise. Your case is a legit one, but I don't think either of us know the game as well as the above mentioned, so I will continue to rely on them when it comes to which stats are useful and which ones are a joke.</div>

Former players rely on their human eyes to make judgment calls all the time. The facts are that QB rating is a poorly constructed formula, and even if Adjusted Yards per pass is not perfect (which it almost is anyway but let's pretend it isn't), it is still superior because it makes sense. Go to QB Rating's wikipedia page and try to decipher that complicated garbage; that is why it was illogical to throw out your Hollinger statement.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Montana and Manning never had a comparable supporting cast, so the comparison isn't there. Manning has had Harrison, who is just as good (or even better) as Rice or Moss in my eyes. Brady has had one year with comparable receivers, and it isn't fair to compare a sample size of one to the many years Montana and Manning have played with top tier receivers.</div>

How is Harrison better or just as good than Moss or Rice? Manning had 49 TDs in 81 less pass attempts than Brady but Harrison was no where near as dominant as Moss. Moss is easily better because he has more TDs and Yards with QBs not named Peyton. He made Culpepper, a washed up Cunningham, and Jeff George look like Peyton.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Also, give me a stat that factors in bad weather, offensive play calling (screen passes and passes to receivers behind or at the line of scrimmage are counted as running plays), and dropped balls. If you're going to define a great QB by stats, then you need to factor in these things.</div>

Yes I already commented on this. Brady's stats in 2007 in good weather games weren't as good as Manning's in 2004, whether you use QB Rating, Adjusted Yards per pass, or whatever.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I will check it out.</div>

Cool.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Moss has better stats than Harrison because they are two totally different types of receivers. Moss is more of a deep threat/ big play receiver.</div>

How does Randy being a big play receiver nullify the fact that he has better stats than Harrison? So only possession receivers are valuable?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Harrison is a mixture of that and is also a possession receiver who routinely catches midrange passes in the middle of the field. If I could trade Moss for Harrison straight up, I'd do it. Harrison is much more difficult for a defense to stop, and his versatility is more valuable than anything Randy Moss is going to add to your offense.</div>
Randy Moss came out of College at 21 and dominated the league without Peyton Manning as a rookie.

Randy Moss has averaged 1 TD a game in 4 different seasons with 3 different QBs. Harrison caught 143 balls in 2002 but averaged 12 yards a catch which is inefficient compared to Randy. Harrison doesn't really beat Moss in any other category

The deep ball opens the game for the rest of his team, it is the most explosive and important route in the game.

This is like Denny's Troy Aikman comment. Troy may be more accurate in a certain range, but overall he isn't better and why would you trade Randy for a guy who is 5 years older and just missed 11 games?

Harrison did play with Peyton Manning in 2004 you know, and he didn't catch 20 TDs or even have 1200 yards.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Like any QB will tell you, throwing the ball inside the 10 is like turning the 6 0r 7 guys in pass coverage into 10 or 11 guys. There's only so many places a receiver can go and the defense doesn't have to cover as much ground. Passes made inside the 10 have to be completely perfect or the play will not be successful.

Pass plays in the middle of the field are designed so that defenders are spread out and 2-3 of them are taken completely out of the play. A QB has a much bigger window for his passes because defenders are spread out and most of the time he only has to factor in one defender when determining where he can or cannot place the ball.</div>

And while you guess the value of a 5 yard TD pass, it's true value on average has already been calculated by the so-called stat geeks.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Well, what I mean is, I'm listening and trying to understand every point you bring up. However, I do not agree with your opinion when it comes to Brady having superior supporting casts because I believe that, in most cases, his offensive and defensive help has been equal or worse than Montana and Manning. Yet somehow a statistic that you tell me is so great at determining the differences between a winning and losing quarterback shows Brady as inadequate, in comparison to the likes of Montana and Manning. Why has he been so successful, then?</div>

In 2003 and 2004, Brady had the 1st and 2nd scoring defenses and had a ball control offense. He had close to mediocre stats in most of those games but this is a team game. I don't even have to mention 2001, and the Pats only needed 20 points in that Superbowl to win the game.

Whether Joe Montana won Superbowls or not makes no difference to me, I just examine his dominant stats in the post-season before Jerry Rice (in that era) and can easily determine he played better in the playoffs. Peyton also has performed better in the post-season and has about the same (or slightly more) GW or tying drives to his credit.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I know that you'll just go right back to the better team argument, but I respectfully disagree with that, as I've already stated. I'm a huge football fan and I welcome anything new and innovative when it comes to analyzing and interpreting the game on the field, but I don't think stats tell the entire story, and I never will. There is so much more to it than that.</div>

Brady can be as clutch as he wants against the Chargers for example, but overall he was terrible. Overall he shouldn't have been in position to win many games.

The Colts won 12 games in 2004 because they had a pathetic defense. The Pats won 14 games that same year with a decent but not special offense because of their dominant 3-4 scheme and 2nd ranked scoring defense.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 2 2008, 12:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>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.</div>

There is no way I can put aside my annoyance and bias on this thread. The local media had a huge man crush on Steve Young (for obvious reasons) and rode the Niner bandwagon hard back then. Though, not so much any more.

Steve Young was a beneficiary of the system and the talent already in place. He & Mariucci benefited from being in the right place at the right time. BYU under Lavell Edwards (with Norm Chow as OC) ran the west coast offense. I, however, don't recall Young being as successful in college as say Jim McMahon or Ty Detmer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 2 2008, 08:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><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>

Bill Walsh once said the Montana was the product of a system & Marino was a system. I have no problem with Montana being among the elite but have real issues with Steve Young as I alluded previously.

I wonder what would have happened had Montana then Young been the phins QB & Marino teaming with Bill Walsh?

 

Mark Twain once said, "There are three types of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics"

As far as the QB rating system goes, it does account for all the stats that a QB can rack up. How did they come up with those methods to determine the actual rating? For example, interception rating os something like; IR=(9.5-(100*(int/attempts))/4). '

My problems with the formula are; its a devil to figure out manually and even less fun to set up on excel.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 3 2008, 02:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>BTW, the media was on Siefert's ass as much as Young (Mariucci came later), until they won the superbowl.</div>

Yes. They were all over Seifert but he at least had skills as a coach.

Mooch ranks right up there w/ Barry Switzer IMO.

An argument could be made that Mooch is somewhat responsible for "creating" the egocentic pinhead that is TO.

 

Quick! Shake! Back me up on this!

 

Jim Kelly was an awesome QB. People make a big deal about Peyton Manning's adjustments at the line of scrimmage, but they forget that the K-Gun offense basically consisted of Jim Kelly as the offensive coordinator.

As for Steve Young? Meh... Don't get me started.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 3 2008, 02:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The media bias was towards Montana, not Young.

As a senior for BYU, Young passed for 3900 yards, 33 touchdowns, and a single season record 71% completion rate. His combined 370 yards/game offense (his rushing + passing) was also a single season record. He was 2nd for the Heisman Trophy, and BYU set an NCAA record for offense with 570 yards/game. He's enshrined in the collegiate hall of fame. He sucked, eh?</div>

FWIW; I did qualify media bias w/ local as in here in Utah.

I still say body of work that Detmer had a better career & actually won the Heisman. I believe alot of the passing records are still held by Detmer. A few (interestingly) are held by some yahoo named John Beck.

PA; I'm so glad there is another SY8 hater in the house.