tru dat. although peyton is an Hof'er.
No doubt about that, but he's not Tom Brady.
It's get to be nitpicking, but honestly either Brady, Montana, Favre, P. Manning, or Marino could all be argued as best overall person at the position of quarterback, ever. You can't just count Super Bowl wins, either. I don't think an Eli Manning is "twice" as good as Peyton Manning or Steve Young. I don't think Brad Johnson is better because of his SB over the likes of big game SB losers Fran Tartkenton or Jim Kelly.
Brady, well he's Tom Brady with 5 freakin' SB appearances, almost perennial postseason status and long strings of no interceptions and many consecutive wins
Montana is the absolute master of making something out of nothing
Favre not only has great numbers, but great longevity and stayed relevant with leading numbers and as starter at an older age than anybody
Peyton threw for so many touchdowns and yards, and all in record time on a lot of stats
Marino was consistently good and his rack of TDs in '84 was off the hook. When asked who was the best ever a few years ago, Joe Montana named Dan Marino but a slight bit ahead of Otto Graham who was the king of his sport in his day.
You have to also look at how these guys stack up in the style of play in their day and how they did against their peers. Nothing is more evident with this than in baseball where Babe Ruth (though not as many HRs as Bonds or Aaron, OK) was so far ahead of his peers in his day that some say there will never be another one. Same can be said about Willie Mays. I think if there was ever a perfect regular season for a QB, I would have to put Marino in '84 up there as wiping out anybody else. Remember if you tossed 20 TDs in that era, it was pretty darn good. Just imagine how many TDs Marino would put up if he was a QB in today's pass happy offenses!
I agree. It's definitely hard to compare players across different eras. But, of the five guys you listed, Montana and Brady are just on another level. Favre was very good but never great, and most of his numbers are due to his longevity more than an extremely high level of play. Marino never winning anything definitely hurts his case.
As far as Peyton vs Brady, a few years ago the argument was always "Peyton has the stats and Brady has the rings." But that's not the case anymore. Other than some of the career statistics that Peyton has mostly because he's played two more seasons, Brady has just as many if not more records. Career QB rating, touchdown to interception ratio, winning percentage, division titles, AFC championships, Super Bowl wins, Super Bowl MVPs, even head-to-head matchups: Brady leads in every category.
There's three things that are pretty telling that at least in my opinion seal the argument for Brady (maybe not as GOAT, but at least best QB of this generation).
1) Even in the years that Peyton statistically had an edge over Brady when you look at the season as a whole, when you break it down with the splits, you can see that Brady was still better. Brady has better numbers when you play home, away, in a dome, outside, in the heat, in the cold, in nice weather, in the rain, in the snow, in the sleet, on turf, on real grass, etc.
So, even in those years that Manning had a higher passer rating than Brady, Brady had a higher passer rating on games played outdoors
AND games played in a dome. The ONLY reason that Manning's season ratings are higher is because (up until this year in Denver), he played at least half of his games in a dome, while Brady played the majority of his games outside.
Everybody plays better indoors than outdoors, so Manning would have the higher numbers solely because a much higher percentage of games played indoors than Brady.
2) Ever notice how its always "Peyton is better than Brady", then "Eli is better than Brady", then "Brees is better than Brady", then "Rodgers is better than Brady".
The one constant? It's always everyone compared to Brady.
3)
Winning percentage (take a look at the chart and sort by winning %). In the end, it all comes down to winning, and Brady takes the cake here.
Brady's 77.9% winning percentage is the highest in the history of the league, and he's the only quarterback ever to win
over three quarters of the games he starts. Peyton's no slouch, but his winning percentage (68.2%) is nearly 10% less than Brady's.
On top of that, Brady's one of four (?) quarterbacks to win at least three Super Bowls and one of two quarterbacks to have played in five of them. He's played in 6 AFC championships (and won 5 of them) in 10 full seasons as a starter.
And he is the first (and only) quarterback in the league's history to lead his team to 10 division titles. The only year where they did not win the division with Brady as the starting QB was 2002, Brady's 2nd year as a starter, where they missed out on the AFC east and playoffs on week 17 due to a tiebreaker.
So yeah, back a few years ago, it was a really close debate between Brady and Manning. But, as their careers have progressed, we've seen Brady widen this gap, and no matter which way you break it down, Brady's the better quarterback. Nothing against Peyton, who is most definitely a great quarterback, surefire 1st ballot hall of famer, and top 5 at his position in the history of the NFL, he's just not as good as Tom.
And you don't think Denver has? All I'm saying is that Brady and the Patriots don't have a free pass to the Super Bowl like everyone thinks they do. We can go look up stats/situations/games (like losing to Seattle is a tell, but it isn't...) but the AFC is pretty tough this year same with the NFC. Like I said, any other year I would agree with you but not this year. It's no longer "New England should win..." it's going to be a tough road to the Super Bowl in the AFC and should be equally the same in the Super Bowl.
Oh no they have. All of the teams in the league (well except maybe the Jaguars
) have improved every week. But Brady has shredded this Denver defense three times in the past year and a half.
I don't think you'll find any real football fan who will say that any team has a "free pass" to the Super Bowl. It doesn't work like that. The hacks over at ESPN might try to say something like that, but it's just not true. When the Patriots had the undefeated regular season and went in to the playoffs as the huge favorite to win it all, they didn't. But in 2001, when they were 14 point underdogs to the Rams, they won. And in 2003 and 2004, when all the hacks were saying there was no way the Patriots would be able to win it again (and again), they proved them wrong. Just proof that the speculation by the ESPN hacks is worth pretty much nothing.
That said, the Patriots somehow scraped by last year with the 2nd worse defense in the league and made it all the way to the Super Bowl. This years team is measurably better on both sides of the ball, so there's no reason, if they play well up to their full potential, that they couldn't go back and win it all.
But it's definitely not an easy road to the Super Bowl for any team in any conference. The NFC has the Falcons, 49ers, Packers, and Giants, who are all formidable teams, and on the AFC you have New England, Houston, Baltimore, and Denver. Any of these teams could win any game on any specific day, so it's definitely shaping up to be a great playoff season.
The Patriots have the Texans coming up to Foxboro this week on MNF and then the 49ers next week on SNF, two of the biggest games of the entire season. These games will provide a great measuring stick for all three teams involved, and we might have a better idea of what to expect in the playoffs with these teams after these matchups. Should be fun.
