Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 9:27:51 GMT -5
So you're saying Tom Brady was a better QB from 2001-2006 than he was from 2007-2014 (2008 excluded)? O rearry? I don't know that I would say that Grue. I know you are getting at the point that he won all three of his SBs in that span. He was statistically better in 2007-2014, but he wasn't exactly horseshit in 2001-2006. I think you are reading more into my point than is there. The guy never had a bad year and frequently had to work with offenses that had to be remade on the fly because the Patriots believe a great deal in running back and/or receivers by rental... Of course. I like this comparison because all of the "rings" vs "no rings" arguments boil down to extenuating factors beyond the QBs control. Eras and defenses and rule enforcement and supporting cast and coaching and... and... and... Rings are important for legacy and Hall of Fame where emotional impressions guide our valuation. Tom Brady presents the best opportunity for "all else equal" in comparison. He has two clearly defined career phases: super bowl wins and no super bowl wins. Same coach. In the Super Bowl wins, he had less experience, lesser statistics. In the non-Super Bowl era he's had an undefeated season ruined by a miracle catch and one of the most prolific offenses in history. He clearly didn't get WORSE as a QB. He performed better, had more experience, worked with teams missing key pieces, and won more games. Just no rings. I wish the debates would be "which QB has a better legacy" and then rings are a factor. "Which QB was better?" always devolves into divergent opinions because the criteria is ambiguous. It's a fundamentally flawed question. Don't get me started on equally illogical "Team X Overrated" or "Eliminate pre-season rankings" either. |
|
tigertowner 68
VIP Member
SportsChatter Featured Writer
Hangin' in and wife improving
Posts: 14,127 
Likes: 2,889
|
Post by tigertowner 68 on Jan 29, 2015 9:30:28 GMT -5
I don't know that I would say that Grue. I know you are getting at the point that he won all three of his SBs in that span. He was statistically better in 2007-2014, but he wasn't exactly horseshit in 2001-2006. I think you are reading more into my point than is there. The guy never had a bad year and frequently had to work with offenses that had to be remade on the fly because the Patriots believe a great deal in running back and/or receivers by rental... Of course. I like this comparison because all of the "rings" vs "no rings" arguments boil down to extenuating factors beyond the QBs control. Eras and defenses and rule enforcement and supporting cast and coaching and... and... and... Rings are important for legacy and Hall of Fame where emotional impressions guide our valuation. Tom Brady presents the best opportunity for "all else equal" in comparison. He has two clearly defined career phases: super bowl wins and no super bowl wins. Same coach. In the Super Bowl wins, he had less experience, lesser statistics. In the non-Super Bowl era he's had an undefeated season ruined by a miracle catch and one of the most prolific offenses in history. He clearly didn't get WORSE as a QB. He performed better, had more experience, worked with teams missing key pieces, and won more games. Just no rings. I wish the debates would be "which QB has a better legacy" and then rings are a factor. "Which QB was better?" always devolves into divergent opinions because the criteria is ambiguous. It's a fundamentally flawed question. Don't get me started on equally illogical "Team X Overrated" or "Eliminate pre-season rankings" either. Very well put. |
|
