Tom Brady - Goat or overrated?

RSM, you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth again. You want to reward Bradshaw for "what he and his team accomplished on the field", while you want to downplay the even greater success achieved by Brady and his much less talented teams.

Montana got to 4 Super Bowls and won 4 = 8 points
Bradshaw got to 4 Super Bowls and won 4 = 8 points
Brady got to 9 Super Bowls and won 6 = 15 points

If you want team accomplishments to be the measuring stick, Brady is the clear winner.  If you want traditional QB stats to be the measuring stick, Brady is the clear winner.  If you want ratio stats to be the measuring stick, Brady is the clear winner.  If you want advanced metrics like average value or HOF points to be the measuring stick, Brady is the clear winner.  If you want longevity at a high level to be the measuring stick, Brady is the clear winner.  If you want post-season awards to be the measuring stick, Brady is the clear winner.  If you want the opinions of those who rank players for a living to be the measuring stick, Brady is the clear winner.  If only RSM's opinion counts, then Bradshaw has a chance.

You create a scoring system out of thin air and then expect it to be taken as law?  Who are you, Gavin Newsom?

Lets make a tweak to that scoring system.  Instead of just rewarding QB's for their team getting to Super Bowls, lets reward them for winning Super Bowls when they do get there.  You get a point for winning the Super Bowl, you lose a point for losing a Super Bowl.  That would put Montana & Bradshaw at 4 points and Brady at 3.  See how easy it is to win an argument when you just make up scoring systems to fit the narrative you want?

In addition, Bradshaw and Montana won their Super Bowls when they were in their prime.  When Brady was in his prime, he lost Super Bowls.  He only won them at the beginning and end of his career, when he had less of a effect on his teams performance.  Put Drew Brees in Brady's place with Belichicks Patriots and Brees wins 8 of those 9 Super Bowls, maybe only losing to Philly.

Brady is a hall of famer but no GOAT

RSM is not alone MDDad, there are others that exhibit BDS (Brady Derangement Syndrome) like RSM. The fun factor point system we may throw out there for entertainment is just that, lets simply look at the CAREER SUPER BOWL RECORDS all together, side by side, nothing but the facts provided by the NFL and the NFL Reference guide.

PRO FOOTBALL REFERENCE


Again strictly the numbers, records in SUPER BOWL performance... by QB's ALL-TIME, of the 16 records for QB's here is the standing...

TOM BRADY 7 records
TERRY BRADSHAW 2 records
PHIL SIMMS 2 records
TROY AIKMAN 1 record
JAKE DELHOMME 1 record
RICH GANNON 1 record
JOE MONTANA 1 record
STEVE YOUNG 1 record

If the name of the game is WINNING, BRADY has that record too at SIX RINGS another NFL RECORD.

And how about MVP's for QB's in SUPER BOWLS? Well TOM BRADY owns that as well with 4 SUPER BOWL MVP's, Joe Montana 3, Terry Bradshaw 2, Bart Starr 2....

Again it's BRADY, BRADY, BRADY, sorry RSM. And if this doesn't say GOAT nothing does, BRADY's MVPS from his first to his last were 15 YEARS apart....! Yes, Bradshaw had two in back to back years a nice feat, but come on we are talking about factors that lead to the notion one is GOAT, Brady's numbers, his playing career, dwarf the rest of the pack.

RSM=BDS

You make the argument that Brady was a better QB than Montana or Bradshaw solely on the fact that he won more Super Bowls, ignoring the fact that he also lost Super Bowls.  You then make the argument that Trout is a greater player than Posey even though Posey led his team to 3 World Series championships while Trouts teams have never won a playoff game.

To support your arguments, you rely upon awards that were voted on by media.  Basically a popularity contest, but in your eyes, if people think someone one is the best, that sews it up.

That is the disease.  It is a failure to understand the intangibles of greatness, that which separates players of amazing talent.  Many Mater Dei fans suffer from that disease, they believe their team was always the best team even though they often fail to win the title.  For them, the results don't matter, what matters is that some writers said the Monarchs are the best, and since they agree, that is all that is needed.  The fact that they failed to accomplish it on the field does not compute.

The reason we keep score is to see who wins.  Winning titles is the ultimate in keeping score, and having the opportunity to win a title in your grasp and letting it slide away tells a story as well.  The greatest players don't lose when they are so close to winning a title, especially multiple times.  Great players do lose titles, the greatest don't.  

Your philosophy on what is needed to create greatness is rooted in the "everybody gets a trophy" mentality.  No need to keep score, MDDad can tell you who is the best player or best team just by watching them practice or by looking at the stats.

Dude, I really thought we had beaten this horse to death, but apparently you want to flog the carcass one more time.

First, using a player's winning percentage in the Super Bowl as a measure of his greatness is ridiculous. If that's the metric, then a guy who gets to one Super Bowl and wins is a greater quarterback than a guy who leads his team to 15 Super Bowls but only wins 14 of them. If that's the metric, then Trent Dilfer, Joe Flacco, Nick Foles, Jeff Hostetler, Brad Johnson, Jim McMahon, Mark Rypien and Doug Williams are all greater quarterbacks than Tom Brady, John Elway, Brett Favre, Bob Griese, Dan Marino, Roger Staubach, Fran Tarkenton and Peyton Manning, since they all have 1.000 Super Bowl winning percentages and all those other guys lost at least one.

As for Terry Bradshaw's Super Bowl greatness:

In his first Super Bowl, he completed a whopping nine passes for 96 yards, and he was sacked twice. The Steelers won largely because Franco Harris took the offense on his shoulders with 34 carries and 158 yards.

In his second Super Bowl, he completed a whopping 47% of his passes, got sacked twice and fumbled once. The Steelers won largely because Lynn Swann turned in one of the more acrobatic performances in Super Bowl history.

In his third Super Bowl, he took four sacks and lost two fumbles.

In his fourth Super Bowl, he threw three interceptions.

Overall, he had 9 touchdowns, 7 interceptions, 8 sacks and 3 fumbles. One could almost just as easily make the case that his Steelers won four Super Bowls despite his play, rather than because of it. Or that he's not so much a GOAT as he is a goat.

And finally and perhaps most importantly, NOBODY agrees with you.