When there are five, yes it does determine player quality. I know I know, it's not a fair statement since we have no other players with five rings to compare him to, but right or wrong I don't hold that against him. :idunno:
NFL 2017
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Brady hadn't developed his long pass until years after he took the reins, so receivers like Randy Moss would have been lost on him, but not on Bledsoe. I think that the development of his long pass is what you and Nick are seeing in his stats as the years went on. But all I and many NE fans saw as his passing game got longer, was that his tournament winning percentage dropped, so we'd have just assumed he kept winning with dinks-n-dunks rather than put on an airshow.
No one comes close to Russells 13 ring count, but it doesn't make him the greatest either. Does it add to the luster? Sure.
I loved Lynn Swan
People look at numbers and lose track of the era. Look at the wrs of the era. Swann made the NFL's All-Decade team for the 70s. He had a higher avg. and more TDs than Drew Pearson, who was also on that All-Decade team. Paul Warfield, another great receiver of the era, had a higher average by almost 4 yds, but only one more TD despite playing 157 games to Swann's 116.
Don't let people fool you about Swann. He was great.
Sure we do, and not just in football as already pointed out. Otto Graham played in 10 straight championship games winning 7 times in 2 different leagues. He played in an era when passing was at a severe disadvantage, yet his efficiency for his career is 86.6, or about the same as Brady before teams go to bring their own ball.
In addition to being a big fan of Chuck Noll, Mike Shannahan, Tom Landry....I really like Paul Brown who has given us what we have in the NFL today.
Brady made the SB 7 times out of 14 seasons, and won 5 of them (two of them without Vinatieri, which lays that theory to rest). He only missed the playoffs once (2002 NFL season). And his clock's still ticking. But based on championships Graham is the leader, good point.
Are you arguing that rings mean nothing, or just that they don't mean everything? I don't think they mean everything, but I do think that they mean a lot.
The unqualified point of any game is to win it. So Tom Brady and Joe Montana and Otto Graham are in the mix, but Dan Marino and Jim Kelly and Warren Moon are not. If any of those last three had won a lot, then they'd be in the mix. We also know why Terry Bradshaw isn't in the mix, and it's not just because he's already voted for Brady. He watched both Montana and Brady play after he retired, and he votes Brady.
And despite last season's result, there's still time on the clock for Aaron Rodgers to rise to the level of Montana and Graham and Brady. He's still perfect in SBs even though he's only gotten there once, but he can get there again and again and again, he has the ability.
The Patriots won 3 in 4 seasons, their glory years, when Brady was not much more than mediocre. Him not stinking up the Super Bowl, like many Hall of Fame QBs have done certainly helped. I'm only 44. I have only seen 1 Super Bowl won with bad QB play, and that was Denver over Green Bay.
Therefore, Trend Dilfer is the best.
:chuckle: And so is Simms, and Rodgers, and Montana, because they all have 100% winning percentage in the big game. But only one of them has four rings, so that's why Dilfer and Simms and Rodgers are not in the mix (not yet anyway for Rodgers, but his clock's still ticking).
What about Roethlisberger in his first, or Peyton in his last? They didn't lose the big game for their teams, but they sure didn't help much.
Peyton's main contribution to that ring was raising enough of his shadow to come off the bench and win home field, then beat his rival, Brady, to send them into the big game, which ain't hay, especially given the lateness of the hour.
Completely agreed.
If he'd had (and taken) the right coaching early there's no telling what he might have been. He was great when he got it and his physical skills had declined appreciably, except maybe for the cannon.
And Joe? I still say what made him the greatest was between his ears. You didn't get into Joe's head. You had to physically beat him, the way the Giants did.
Rice, Taylor, Jones, Craig, and oh yeah, maybe Rathman. With today's rules Montana would have put up Marino numbers using that crew. Rice...well, he's Rice (meaning a few head scratching drops in a sea of great receptions). Taylor would be the first option for half the teams playing today. Jones wasn't much of a blocker but he had butter soft hands for the ball and great instincts. Craig was a remarkable all purpose back who could scat or give you a dangerous match-up as another receiver out of the backfield. When you needed a hole or short yardage Rathman would make or get it for you.
Put that crew on today's field with defenders hamstrung by the rules and who would give them much of a game?
Elway's best years were at the end when he couldn't do it physically like when he was younger. It is hard to just dump blame on Reeves, when Reeves was a "defensive" coach. Then again, after the 55-10 Super Bowl, Elway said to Reeves before the draft, he needs help. According to Elway anyway. And Reeves responded by drafting Tommy Maddox. Who only needed a dozen years to develop.
And yes, on the game's biggest stage, Montana was flawless. Even at Notre Dame, when inexplicably he was still riding the bench and only came in to get the comeback.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Staubach!