Tom Brady: Michael Jordan of the NFL?

[djwhokid]

I believe so. Tom Brady is the clear cut best player in the NFL. No other player makes his teammates around him better. Like Jordan, he is money in clutch situations.

In the end of his career, Tom Brady should go down as the greatest football player.... better than Montana, Favre, Aikmen, Starr, etc..

With QB's like Elway and Montana you can argue, "but they had great players around them..."

Who are the great players around Brady? No Jerry Rice, no all-pro bowl RB, no 2-4 pro bowl offensive linemen, no pro Bowl TE.

Brady already has 3 rings, who were his weapons during that time? David Patten, Troy Brown, Deion Branch...

[DiamondDave]

How many times you want to create the same thread under a different title?

[Habsfan84]

I think that is between Brady and manning as the supreme of the NFL. Ill give the edge to brady bewcause he is good and bcause he played for Michigan.

[LongtimeBravesFan]

Had Vinnetari played in the Super Bowls like he has the last two weeks Brady would be another Super Bowl loser like Marino or the young Elway.

[djwhokid]

I used to compare Randy Moss to Dennis Rodman, but that comparision does not give him enough credit.

Bill Simmons compares Randy Moss to a Shaquille O'Neal type player, so does Jason Whitlock:

"Intimidation," Jeff George explained. "Defensive backs are trained to turn and play the football. Guys are too scared to turn away from Randy. You'll see two DBs running with Randy, but they'll never turn and find the football because they're too afraid to take their eyes off Randy. As a quarterback, you just throw it up to Randy no matter the coverage because you know he'll be only guy looking for the football."

How many times have we seen that this season — two guys wrapped around Randy and Brady floating a ball into traffic?

Moss reminds me of Shaquille O'Neal. We took O'Neal for granted during his prime on the basketball court, and he won just one MVP award. In retrospect that's ridiculous. O'Neal's impact on the NBA far exceeds Steve Nash's, and Nash has won multiple MVP awards.

Let's no longer deny Randy Moss. Yes, he used to be extremely immature. His effort at times was atrocious. None of that matters this year. With defenses doing everything within reason to slow him, Moss has 16 TD receptions, more than 1,000 receiving yards, the Patriots are 10-0, and, most important, Moss has made Tom Brady the second-most-valuable player in football.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7472596

Shaq would probably be a better comparision. Shaq at times, has been lazy (see his last year with the Lakers).

That's what makes the Patriots such a great team. Imagine if Michael Jordan and Shaq played together on the same team.

You have that in the Patriots. The best QB and the best WR.

I would compare Wes Welker with Toni Kukoc. Welker is money on a good team.

[Stlouistravis]

Originally Posted by djwhokid

I believe so. Tom Brady is the clear cut best player in the NFL. No other player makes his teammates around him better. Like Jordan, he is money in clutch situations.

In the end of his career, Tom Brady should go down as the greatest football player.... better than Montana, Favre, Aikmen, Starr, etc..

With QB's like Elway and Montana you can argue, "but they had great players around them..."

Who are the great players around Brady? No Jerry Rice, no all-pro bowl RB, no 2-4 pro bowl offensive linemen, no pro Bowl TE.

Brady already has 3 rings, who were his weapons during that time? David Patten, Troy Brown, Deion Branch...

I am sorry, but you are not going to convince me that he is somehow the "Jordan" of his sport.

Michael was hands down the best in his sport for almost a span of 13 years regardless of position, and there was no one remotely close to him that you could argue was on his level.

You can easily argue that there many other players in the NFL that are not only on the same level as Brady at his position (Manning..Who I still think is better) but also players who are just as great if not greater than Brady at their respective positions (Tomlinson, M. Harrison, etc.)

Also I would not consider Dwight Clark, Freddy Solomon, and Wendell Tyler as GREAT PLAYERS, and Montana won a Super Bowl with these guys, and can we please stop this ridiculous notion that the Pats have had no great players on those early or late super bowl teams this decade.

Bruschi, Vrabel, Matt Light, Troy Brown, Richard Seymour, Ty Law, Willie Mc Ginest, Adam Vinatieri.....All guys who have been to multiple Pro Bowls.

Let's also not give Brady all of the credit for those Super Bowl victories as it was also the defense which contributed to those victories as well.

[djwhokid]

Manning better than Tom Brady?

You are nuts.

The Manning-backers pointed to the stats, but that is not the case this season as Thomas will break Manning's record. Brady's playoff success obviously towers what Manning has donw.

Marvin Harrison, seriously? Randy Moss is a better receiver than Harrison. If Moss had a consistent QB his entire career like Harrison, instead of the Brad Johnson/Jeff George/Daunte Culpepper/Kerry Collins/Aaron Brooks rotation, his numbers would even be better.

Bruschi, Vrabel, Matt Light, Troy Brown, Richard Seymour, Ty Law, Willie McGinest, Adam Vinatieri.....All guys who have been to multiple Pro Bowls.

OMG! Troy Brown has made the pro bowl once! Matt Light made the pro bowl once as a injury replacement. Willie McGinest has NEVER made the Pro Bowl.

Tom Brady does not have the supporting cast of say Peyton Manning. Manning has only one ring despite playing with Harrison (future HOF WR), Edge James (future HOF RB), Reggie Wayne (two-time Pro Bowl WR), Tarrik Glenn (pro Bowl OT), etc... etc..

[Zen653]

OMG! Troy Brown has made the pro bowl once! Matt Light made the pro bowl once as a injury replacement. Willie McGinest has NEVER made the Pro Bowl.

Mike Vrabel has never made the Pro Bowl either.

The Patriots-haters can disparage Brady all they want. The bottom line is that he makes his teammates better and knows how to win.

The one knock on Brady in the past had been that he didn't have the individual statistics of Peyton Manning. Well, until this year, Brady didn't have the same offensive weapons as Manning either. Now with a good wide receiving corps, Brady is on pace to easily shatter the all-time TD record. Through 13 games, he's already thrown for over 4,000 yards.

If Tom Brady wins at least one more Super Bowl (and definitely if he wins another 2-3), he'll be regarded as the Bill Russell of football; Peyton Manning can be Wilt Chamberlain.

[bedir than average]

So Zen, you are willing to admit that Peyton is the better player? Because Wilt was certainly the better player.

Also, neither of those were near Michael at his peak.

[Zen653]

So Zen, you are willing to admit that Peyton is the better player? Because Wilt was certainly the better player.

I don't agree that Chamberlain was the better player. I'm not saying that he was the inferior player either. It's hard to tell. Chamberlain undoubtedly had gaudier scoring averages and had a more intimidating physical game but Russell was more cerebral and nearly always destroyed him in head-to-head match-ups. Also, the two put up nearly identical career numbers in most of the other statistical categories.

In games like basketball and football, the quality of your teammates can impact your individual numbers. Had Russell not played on stacked championship Celtics teams, he easily could have padded his stats to Chamberlain levels. But Russell didn't have to score 30+ points per game to be effective. He could trust his teammates. He could defer to others. He could be an efficient complementary player on some nights and focus more on outlet passing, setting screens and doing the little things that go unappreciated, on other nights.

Chamberlain didn't play that way. He tried to do everything himself. Sure, he averaged twice as many points per game as Russell but he also took almost twice the number of shots. This isn't to say that Chamberlain wasn't an outstanding player - only that it's not fair to measure players in the same way when they had different styles and situations.

To use a current basketball example, look at the Celtics. In past years, when the Celtics were a one-man team, Pierce did everything from scoring to rebounding to passing. This year, with Garnett and Allen added to the mix, none of the Big Three have to be ball hogs. None of them have to take all the shots. They can share the ball with each other and allow some of the secondary guys to pick up the slack on offense. As a result, their numbers are down across the board. Now does that mean they've all taken a step back? Is Kevin Garnett no longer a great power forward? Is Paul Pierce no longer a perennial All-Star swingman? Of course not. If they were alone again on separate teams, I'm sure they could easily pad their numbers. Fortunately, they no longer have to; there's enough talent around them to distribute the offense more evenly, focus more on defense, and conserve their energy for later on in the season.

That's how I see the Brady vs. Manning rivalry. Neither player is Michael Jordan because neither player is alone in his supremacy above all others. Russell vs. Chamberlain is a better comparison because both players are immensely talented but one has generally had more success in big games than the other (Russell-Brady) and one has historically had better conditions for displaying his individual firepower (Chamberlain-Manning.)

Until this season, the Colts had much better offensive weapons for Manning. This allowed him to show off his talent and throw for lots of yardage and touchdown passes. Brady, on the other hand, had very weak receivers. This artificially kept his numbers down and made pundits think that he couldn't throw the long ball, even though in reality, he was simply playing within the capacities of his team.

Now that Brady's teammates on offense are as good as Manning's, we're seeing Brady put up the gaudy numbers that Manning always produces. Whereas before some could say, "Well, Manning always has superior numbers, therefore he's better," we're now seeing that Brady is every bit as capable of producing those numbers when given a similar cast of players. In fact, Brady is out-performing Manning on an individual basis this year and will likely break his all-time record for TD passes in a single season.

Same story with Russell and Chamberlain, or the Pierce of this year and the Pierce of last year. The surrounding circumstances matter. In basketball and football, you can't look at the individual stats alone like in baseball.

[Stlouistravis]

Originally Posted by djwhokid

Manning better than Tom Brady?

You are nuts.

The Manning-backers pointed to the stats, but that is not the case this season as Thomas will break Manning's record. Brady's playoff success obviously towers what Manning has donw.

Yes I believe that Manning is Better. So many observers get into this habit of labeling a guy as the best in the game simply because of one eye-popping year and it is silly to me to somehow conclude that Brady is better based on this year alone. I still think that Peyton's entire body of work is better and more consistent from rookie year to current year in terms of judging these two.

I don't think that there is a better QB in terms of executing preparation, practice, and sunday performance than Manning. I Believe Manning is the very reason that you see more quarterbacks intensely studying Game Film more than ever these days, and It was Manning and Harrison who made Pregame preparation 2 hours before game time such an art that now you see more QB-WR tandems trying to build comraderie the same way.

I would even argue that It was peyton who made Brady a better QB by giving him a model to compete with, because you are not going to convince me that Brady was as Preparation anal as Manning when he first entered the league out of Michigan.

Originally Posted by djwhokid

Marvin Harrison, seriously? Randy Moss is a better receiver than Harrison. If Moss had a consistent QB his entire career like Harrison, instead of the Brad Johnson/Jeff George/Daunte Culpepper/Kerry Collins/Aaron Brooks rotation, his numbers would even be better.

I think you missed my point! I was just using Harrison as an example and Moss is actually a better Example to use .....So you are making my point....

Michael Jordan was hands down better than everyone in the NBA regardless of Position (Center, Forward, Guard, Power Forward, Etc.)

My point is that there are other players in the NFL that are so much on Par with Brady at their respective positions that you can't say Brady is the Best Player in Football...Moss and Tomlinson being the best examples to make my case. You will not be able to tell me that Brady is better at being a QB than Tomlinson is at being a Running Back or better as a QB than Moss is at being a Wide receiver.

Each of these guys are superior at their positions...Jordan was Superior REGARDLESS OF POSITION in the NBA!!!!!

Originally Posted by djwhokid

OMG! Troy Brown has made the pro bowl once! Matt Light made the pro bowl once as a injury replacement. Willie McGinest has NEVER made the Pro Bowl.

I may have been wrong about McGinest Making the Pro Bowl, but McGinest is no slouch so please don't try to dismiss him as simply a good linebacke and besides.....Pro Bowl Voting is just as political and shoddy as MLB All-Star Game voting. Deserving Players don't always make it so it is not exactly the 100% best way to determine a players worth.

Also Troy Brown has some worthy overall career numbers as a football player.

My point is that Brady was not surrounded by scrubs as you are trying so very hard to insist.

Also, Haven't you learned yet that you don't need 3 or 4 superstar players to win Championships and Having them doesn't guarantee one??? Where have you been the last 20 years??

The 2003-04 Detroit Pistons and the 1989 Los Angeles Dodgers are just a couple of many examples in sports of non-superstar laden teams winning it all and should I really waste time pointing out the gobs of star laden teams in sports who didn't win.

This is exactly why it is foolish to somehow downgrade Peyton simply because he didn't win more with Marvin, Reggie, Edge, Etc.

Hell.........Jim Kelly couldn't win with Thomas, Reed, a Very talented O-Line, and Bruce Smith on Defense.....But last time I checked he's still considered one of the best and a Hall of Famer as well.

So are we going to conclude that Kelly did not make every one around him better simply because the Bills didn't win more Super Bowls? How silly would that be and I am sure his Bills teammates would beg to differ.

I think the "making players around you better phenomena" is a two way street. Players make "EACH OTHER" better. No single player just makes everyone better. For as good as Brady makes his teammates better, his O-Line makes him better by giving him great pass protection, Moss makes him better with his great athleticism........You get the point.

And I also think that some players have a cap on how much better they can get almost to a point that the influence of a great player won't matter....they can only get so much better until they reach a peak and their weaknesses remain.

Originally Posted by djwhokid

Tom Brady does not have the supporting cast of say Peyton Manning. Manning has only one ring despite playing with Harrison (future HOF WR), Edge James (future HOF RB), Reggie Wayne (two-time Pro Bowl WR), Tarrik Glenn (pro Bowl OT), etc... etc..

This is covered in my above paragraph.

And can someone explain to me why is it that everytime someone has an opinion that differs from those of Pats fans, you must be a "HATER"??????

Give Me A Break........ it's just as bad as listening to the Patriots ridiculously whine about not getting respect for the last 6 years when they are not only the most talked about team in the NFL, but one of the most talked about and respected teams in all of sports!!

[Stlouistravis]

Originally Posted by Zen653

Russell was more cerebral.

Zen,

You are without question someone who I truly respect when talking Hoops, but how can you assess that Chamberlain was somehow less cerebral than Russell?

I think that it is a huge mistake that many make in that they allow the facts of Chamberlains physical dominance and athleticism to somehow fool them into thinking that it was all that he had and all that he relied on.

[Zen653]

how can you assess that Chamberlain was somehow less cerebral than Russell?

Russell's teams routinely out-performed Chamberlain's in head-to-head matchups, despite Chamberlain's clear physical advantages.

Russell recounts in his biography how he would wine and dine Chamberlain the night before a big game and fill his head with compliments so that he wouldn't be as desperate to prove himself on the floor.

The Celtic captain played all kinds of mind games with Chamberlain and often succeeded. He had to play Chamberlain that way, he writes, because Chamberlain was more gifted in terms of natural ability. Other players tried to defeat Chamberlain mentally as well, including Dolph Schayes whose vastly inferior Syracuse Nationals swept the Warriors in 1960-61.

I strongly recommend you the book, "Second Wind," which was written before Russell's most recent biography. It's pretty hard to finish that book and not come away in awe of Russell's profound knowledge of not only basketball, but history and life itself. Russell studied every aspect of basketball with punctilious detail. I can't think of too many people with a higher basketball IQ.

Now this doesn't mean that Chamberlain was an imbecilic beast who won exclusively with brawn. He was a highly intelligent player who improved his game by making adjustments on the basis of how his teammates performed on a given night. Few people remember how dominant of a defensive player he became in 66-67 when the additions of Greer and Cunningham allowed him to focus less on offense. And Chamberlain always had his way against Willis Reed, who had a similar physical style of play but not the analytical in-game eye of Chamberlain.

While I think Russell was likely the more cerebral of the two overall, by no means does that mean I think Chamberlain was a moron. Both players were very smart, but after reading a fair amount about both, I think Russell wins the mental battle. Chamberlain could be stubborn and hard to deal with; he wasn't well-liked in San Francisco and he was sometimes slow to adapt. Russell was constantly evolving, always working an angle to gain an edge.