How much do Super Bowls matter? Which Tom Brady would you rather have?

[keggerz]

Tom Brady has arguably become one of the greatest QBs of all-time...but I have to ask if that is something that should have happened? Much of Brady's luster was had in his first five years as a starter...that span of time is represented by answer #1 above....since then Brady has seemingly been solidifying his grasp as one of the best ever with his production since 2006...that span of time is represented by answer #2...

 

the question is...how much do Super Bowls and postseason success matter? Dan Marino gets knocked down multiple notches because he never won a Super Bowl...Peyton Manning even gets dinged for his

postseason struggles...yet Brady seems to have teflon when compared to those two as well as many others that have had issues in the playoffs.

 

Just a little something to think about is all...especially when you consider that Brady's production from 2001-2005 really isn't all that great...if not for those Super Bowl wins I wonder just how highly regarded he would be.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: I didn't inlcude Brady's injured season of 2008 in any totals.

Edited February 10, 2013 by keggerz

[Footballjoe]

The idea of playing the game is to win the Super Bowl. It does not matter whether you as the QB throw td's or hand off for the scores. What matters is you manage the game and win.

[delusions of grandeur]

This whole equating post-season success with "eliteness" has gotten way out of hand, and doesn't seem to take into account how difficult it is to play against the top 6 teams in the league in a single-elimination tournament (let alone to get there). It's not like you can even have an easier path like March Madness, the NFL post-season is as tough as it gets.

 

Yet now people are treating Manning and Brady like it hurts their legacy, and starting the Flacco elite calls, by reducing it to "what have you done for me lately" (and of course reducing it to one player, instead of the team). Well, every year they get you into a position to be in the tourney of the top NFL teams, that only 1 team can win.

Edited February 10, 2013 by delusions of grandeur

[DMD]

Even Brady is not enough to alone win games and it is not really on him that they lost Superbowls and playoff games. It is probably more about the offensive system and Brady in particular being so well known to defenses that it makes it hard on the Pats to do anything new. You learn the tendencies and habits of Brady, you know all you need to know about the Pats offense.

[Savage Beatings]

Implicit in this is a flawed premise:

 

That a higher producing QB will not win a Superbowl. Way too many other factors to try to draw a direct causal relationship between Brady's high level of production and the team's lack of a Championship.

 

Winning a Superbowl is a team effort. I'd rather have a higher producing QB, and then ALSO have the right supporting talent and coaching staff to help bring the rest of the team along.

 

But if you are saying that hypothetically I must choose one or the other, then I would certainly choose the Championships.

[keggerz]

Everyone makes valid points...the reason I created this was for a few different reasons but one was because while doing some research I realized just how much Brady's star has risen since 2006 but guys like Marino and Kelly etc that had big numbers but failed to win any Super Bowls are always dinged for that...yet Brady, there is no ding, his star just got brighter...seems a bit funny and figured it would be a bit thought provoking is all...well and help breathe some life into the forum during this slow time of year.

Edited February 11, 2013 by keggerz

[detlef]

Everyone makes valid points...the reason I created this was for a few different reasons but one was because while doing some research I realized just how much Brady's star has risen since 2006 but guys like Marino and Kelly etc that had big numbers but failed to win any Super Bowls are always dinged for that...yet Brady, there is no ding, his star just got brighter...seems a bit funny and figured it would be a bit thought provoking is all...well and help breathe some life into the forum during this slow time of year.

 

I think the "ding" for guys who never won it is there because, well, they never won it. For all we know, they were incapable of showing up on the biggest stage. I'm not saying that was certainly the case, but there is no evidence to say other wise, so again "for all we know".

 

Given that, there's always going to be the "yeah, but" when it comes to all-time greats who never hoisted the Lombardi trophy.

 

Just like there's a "yeah, but" when it comes to guys who won it all but may have simply been a cog in a machine that was much, much bigger than them. Dilfer stands out, but even a guy like Terry Bradshaw gets tagged with this despite winning four times.

 

Brady doesn't need to worry about that because he has. So, it doesn't matter that he happens to have been more prolific during stretches when they didn't win it all. He doesn't have to answer either question. He's checked the box for winning it all and checked the box for being able to put up gaudy stats.

[stevegrab]

Others make some good points particularly regarding Brady not getting dinged as much because he had already won 3 SB. And SavageBeatings point on making the pick is spot on.

 

 

I could pose the same question using Belichek, with team stats (off/def scoring, yardage, etc.) showing that those teams prior to 2006 were better and more able to win the SB. Would that make him a better coach during one era over the other.

[Patriots]

Its so much of a team game. The QB can't do it all. Brady has 3 rings but he could easily have 6 or 7. I think its a testament to the league. Its much harder to win a SB now then it was 10 years ago. Think of all the blowouts we used to watch. Now it seems the games come down to the last possession every year. Teams are more evenly matched up now, parity or whatever its called.

 

But already having 3 superbowls to your name is makes your resume pretty legit. I think he needs one more to be in the conversation about greatest of all time.

[Trots]

Brady's Super Bowl winning seasons and stats look very Flacco-esque.

[keggerz]

Brady's Super Bowl winning seasons and stats look very Flacco-esque.

 

But Brady was clearly considered ELITE after his first 5 seasons...Flacco, many seem to want to dismiss him from being elite...It must be all about the rings

[keggerz]

Others make some good points particularly regarding Brady not getting dinged as much because he had already won 3 SB. And SavageBeatings point on making the pick is spot on.

 

 

I could pose the same question using Belichek, with team stats (off/def scoring, yardage, etc.) showing that those teams prior to 2006 were better and more able to win the SB. Would that make him a better coach during one era over the other.

 

Actually was hoping someone would bring up Bill...if another coach had gone 7-6 with two Super Bowl losses in 7 yrs there would probably be outcries from fans to move on...right or wrong you know you would hear them...yet, because Bill has those wins in the bank you don't hear those things...at least I have never heard it from NE fans.

 

Its so much of a team game. The QB can't do it all. Brady has 3 rings but he could easily have 6 or 7. I think its a testament to the league. Its much harder to win a SB now then it was 10 years ago. Think of all the blowouts we used to watch. Now it seems the games come down to the last possession every year. Teams are more evenly matched up now, parity or whatever its called.

 

But already having 3 superbowls to your name is makes your resume pretty legit. I think he needs one more to be in the conversation about greatest of all time.

 

While I agree with the bolded it can't be denied that the fact that Marino, Kelly and even Tarkenton never won a SB does in fact tarnish their resume...I guess I am trying to say you can't have it both ways....if SB wins matter so much then that is fine and I understand the love Brady got after 5 seasons as a starter...but what he has done the past 6 six years has gone a long way to enhance his status...that is the point and I don't think you can have it both ways, but we clearly do.

[delusions of grandeur]

Actually was hoping someone would bring up Bill...if another coach had gone 7-6 with two Super Bowl losses in 7 yrs there would probably be outcries from fans to move on...right or wrong you know you would hear them...yet, because Bill has those wins in the bank you don't hear those things...at least I have never heard it from NE fans.

 

While I agree with the bolded it can't be denied that the fact that Marino, Kelly and even Tarkenton never won a SB does in fact tarnish their resume...I guess I am trying to say you can't have it both ways....if SB wins matter so much then that is fine and I understand the love Brady got after 5 seasons as a starter...but what he has done the past 6 six years has gone a long way to enhance his status...that is the point and I don't think you can have it both ways, but we clearly do.

 

 

I disagree you can't have it both ways, as if you either only care about stats or you care about Superbowls. Why is it wrong to care about both, to acknowledge that a Superbowl is the biggest accomplishment you can put on your resume, but a lack thereof does not invalidate the rest of it.

 

There's a reason for the cliches: Any given Sunday, it's a game of inches, the team who makes the best adjustments tends to win, etc. In many games you can point to just 1 or 2 plays or factors that could have easily changed the outcome (see both the Falcons win and loss in the playoffs), so no, I don't think that your team coming up short automatically means you have to decide whether stats or Superbowls matter, they both do and contribute to one's legacy, but it's not either or...

 

Do you expect a team to go 4-0 playing by far their toughest stretch of their schedule? It's tough enough in the regular season, but compounded with big playoff games where the opposition is pumped up. People want to treat it like it's supposed to be easy for the "elite", and that their performance is the only one that matters.

Edited February 11, 2013 by delusions of grandeur

[keggerz]

I disagree you can't have it both ways, as if you either only care about stats or you care about Superbowls. Why is it wrong to care about both, to acknowledge that a Superbowl is the biggest accomplishment you can put on your resume, but a lack thereof does not invalidate the rest of it.

 

There's a reason for the cliches: Any given Sunday, it's a game of inches, the team who makes the best adjustments tends to win, etc. In many games you can point to just 1 or 2 plays or factors that could have easily changed the outcome (see both the Falcons win and loss in the playoffs), so no, I don't think that your team coming up short automatically means you have to decide whether stats or Superbowls matter, they both do and contribute to one's legacy, but it's not either or...

 

Do you expect a team to go 4-0 playing by far their toughest stretch of their schedule? It's tough enough in the regular season, but compounded with big playoff games where the opposition is pumped up. People want to treat it like it's supposed to be easy for the "elite", and that their performance is the only one that matters.

 

to the bolded...but in a sense it does...you almost always here the addendum that Marino can't be the best because he didn't win a SB...which in essence does invalidate what he did as QB...not winning the SB has/had much more to do with his team than it ever did him...but I get what you are saying, I really do...I guess I just think that some guys do get treated a bit unjustly while others do not.

[whomper]

If regular season stats equated superbowl success Tony Romo would be Joe Montana

[Whiskey Pimp]

Brady's Super Bowl winning seasons and stats look very Flacco-esque.

 

 

The bolded part takes Flacco out of it.

[keggerz]

The bolded part takes Flacco out of it.

 

fwiw these are Brady's SB numbers:

 

01: 16-27 59.3% 145 yds 1TD 0INT

03: 32-48 66.7% 354 yds 3TDs 1INT

05: 23-33 69.7% 236 yds 2TDs 0INT

[Whiskey Pimp]

fwiw these are Brady's SB numbers:

 

01: 16-27 59.3% 145 yds 1TD 0INT

03: 32-48 66.7% 354 yds 3TDs 1INT

05: 23-33 69.7% 236 yds 2TDs 0INT

 

 

My point was that Brady has had multiple SB seasons and not just 1. A QB getting to and winning 1 SB is a great feat but it doesn't make someone elite IMO.

[faceplant]

The idea of playing the game is to win the Super Bowl. It does not matter whether you as the QB throw td's or hand off for the scores. What matters is you manage the game and win.

 

 

This.

 

QB numbers are often dictated by the offensive scheme in addition to talent/execution. A great offense has both.