LVH2 wrote:That's often the underlying issue in a lot of these debates.GrumpyCatFace wrote:Precisely.C-Mag wrote:There's a limited set of games to choose from in which Belichick coached Patriots played without Brady. Of the evidence out there, the Pats win - loss percentage is about the same with or without Brady. It implies the Patriots can do as well without him, but it's not definite proof. However, there is ample evidence that other QBs playing in the same era are far more valuable to their team. For instance, Peyton Manning goes down for a year and the Colts go from 80% wins and a Superbowl contender to a 1-15 loser picking first in the draft.
Who is better? The guy who can carry any team to a certain level of success, or the guy who can achieve even more, but only when he is on the right team.
Wilt vs Bill Russell is another example.
Yeah, better to define the metrics before the argument. If you are talking Championships. No one comes close to Otto Grahm and Paul Brown. Interceptions, Brady has more playoff interceptions than anyone in history.
I could make a case that QBs who played after the 80s or 90s shouldn't be considered because of rule changes basically make the QB a specially protected position like a kicker. How many modern QBs could stand up to the beatings that 70s QBs took game in and game out. Go back and look at Concrete Charlie hitting Frank Gifford, Gifford was out of football for nearly 2 years because of a single hit.
