Jump to content

Is Tom Brady a Hall of Famer?


General Itals
 Share

Is Tom Brady a Hall of Famer?  

143 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Tom Brady a Hall of Famer?

    • Yes. He's a first ballot Hall of Famer even if he retired today.
      25
    • Yes, He'll be a Hall of Famer by the time he retires.
      60
    • Maybe. He has to put up some more stats and keep winning.
      42
    • No. He's the bus driver of a great team, nothing more.
      16


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Brady is better then any QB in the NFL today, including Favre and Manning.

 

Forget the 3 rings....

 

Just look at his winning record.  Thats speaks for itself.

 

692702[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

LOL..............Give the Colts the D that Brady has had for the last 4 years. Take away the rings, and Manning wipes his butt with Bradyl.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL..............Give the Colts the D that Brady has had for the last 4 years. Take away the rings, and Manning wipes his butt with Bradyl.....

 

693446[/snapback]

 

 

 

But you would have to take away Manning's choke factor.

 

Give the Falcons, Randy Moss and they go to the Superbowl. :D I like playing this game too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Me Myself and I

The rest of Brady's career could be mediocre and he'd still get into the HOF, and deservingly so. Three rings in 4 years and 2 out of 3 super bowl MVPs in those 4 years is plenty.

 

You can go on about how he's not a passing stud like Manning but the bottom line is that he wins games. He is undefeated in the playoffs (10-0 I believe) and doesn't make mistakes.

 

As to the Terrell Davis comparison, 1) TD wasn't the leader on his team, but certainly was a huge contributor 2) It was only 2 super bowls, not 3 out of 4 3) TD didn't get 2 super bowl MVPs.

 

Brady is a lock for the HOF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Me Myself and I
Call me jaded and cynical but I think there's a small chance that Brady may not make it.

 

As we all know, Americans have short memories, Bill Buckner and Jackie Smith notwithstanding.  And, the sportswriters that vote for the PFHOF are Americans.

 

While unlikely, if Brady's career spirals downhill yet lasts 7+ more years, I think it's possible that his early success will be forgotten in a "what has he done lately" mentality.  His success in NE will be chalked up to BB and the system and not individual greatness.

 

However, I think he's a pretty good QB and will continue to have success and make it to the HOF.

 

693746[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I strongly disagree. We may have short memories but the media that votes on HOF will not forget 3 superbowls in 4 years and 2 MVPs in those 3 superbowls. Very few teams have had the success in the time frame that New England has and it won't be forgotton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Me Myself and I
FWIW, many of the respondents agree with me (37/94).  And this is just 5 days after he won his 3rd Super Bowl.

 

If I were Brady, I think I'd prefer to have won a string in the middle of or late in my career just for this reason.  And, I would think players appreciate it more if they had to climb the mountain to get there.

 

Time will tell.

 

694230[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Fortunately for Brady nobody here votes on NFL HOF inductees. I listen to ESPN radio alot and they are still talking about players from yesteryear that should have gotten in. Sports writers won't forget. Brady has already accomplished something only a very short list of QBs (all either in the HOF or will be in the HOF) has accomplished. He has accomplished something that only a very short list of players have ever accomplished. If he wasn't the QB I might be inclined to agree with you, but he was the highest profile player on the team.

 

He's in, I guarantee it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fortunately for Brady nobody here votes on NFL HOF inductees.  I listen to ESPN radio alot and they are still talking about players from yesteryear that should have gotten in.  Sports writers won't forget.  Brady has already accomplished something only a very short list of QBs (all either in the HOF or will be in the HOF) has accomplished.  He has accomplished something that only a very short list of players have ever accomplished.  If he wasn't the QB I might be inclined to agree with you, but he was the highest profile player on the team.

 

He's in, I guarantee it.

 

694264[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I know my responses to this are a sort of combination of whether or not I think he deserves it, and how I think the HOF voters would go. Paring it down to JUST my opinion, I would vote him in, most likely on the first ballot, unless he was up against the likes of Rice, Elway and some other very stiff competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True.

 

Brady will need to prove that he can still perform with different coaching staff.

 

If he can still maintain his leadership skills, QB skills under a different OC, he should be able, in time, to distance himself from the HC Bill as being the reason for Pats greatness.

 

I agree that right now, Bill is the master and Brady is his puppet.  If Bill can still continue his winning ways with the loss of Romeo & Weis, then there will be more to talk about.

But right now to call Brady a 1st ballot HOF is simply not correct.  The Terrell Davis comparison is a very good analogy.

 

Winning is great and is what is the goal for everyone.  Winning under adverse situations is what makes you great!

 

693052[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

:DB)

 

His body of work is tainted by the coaching staff somehow?

 

:D

 

I just can't see the sense in that. Bill doesn't make the throws at the end of the game or run the offense very efficiently with/without a running game or a premier receiving talent, or with a noname offensive line filled with 'studs' like Russ Hochstein, Brandon Gorin, Dan Koppen, and Steve Neal. Matt light, okay. Joe Andruzzi (if he could stay healthy) is a better than aver age O-Lineman. Brady does it, he does it consistently, and he succeeds at an enormous success rate, and he does it regardless of the scrubs around him.

 

Is he HOF worthy? I don't think anyone would be after 4 years, no matter what they did, but I think he will certianly get there regardless of who his coach is going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Brady has started for not quite 4 years, and he is being touted as a hall of famer?

 

Sorry, but even with the 3 rings, that's just lame.  Come back and talk to me again in 6-8 years.

 

691210[/snapback]

 

 

 

Winning is important but, the HOF is about being a great player. 3 or 4 years of stats, good or not doesn't get you to the HOF, IMO anyway. Do you think Terrell Davis deserves to be there? As good as he was while he played, he doesn't qualify IMO. Now, if he played out a longer career he could have been the best if he kept up at the pace he was going. If Brady was done today, he wouldn't get there.

692448[/snapback]

 

 

 

Look at Gale Sayers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at Gale Sayers.

 

694581[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Any comparison of Brady to Sayers, or comparing Sayers to just about any player is a stretch. That guy could break any game wide open at any time, and did so on a regular basis, although his career was short. Brady does not dominate a games outcome like that. He is the turtle, Sayers was the hare.

 

Bottom line, Brady will end up in Canton. Whether it's on a first ballot or not is really the question. that depends on how he performs from here on out, and who else will be on the ballot in his first year of eligibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a Raiders fan perspective, look at Jim Plunkett. Two SBs, two wins, two MvPs, a comeback story that is more compelling that Brady coming off the bench and playing well.

 

We have to wait for Brady to clock at least 5-6 more years. Maybe if in the next 4 years, he is as successful in postseason as he has been in the last 4 years, he would be an early lock. But if he slips very noticeably over the next 5-6 years, he could just end up next to Doug Williams, Jim Plunkett and Jim McMahon as a guy who there was a lot of fuss about once-upon-a-time, but is now only really remembered by his team's fanbase.

 

Remember when Kurt Warner could do no wrong? Who here is ready to consider him for the HoF?

Edited by kraftykraft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rest of Brady's career could be mediocre and he'd still get into the HOF, and deservingly so.  Three rings in 4 years and 2 out of 3 super bowl MVPs in those 4 years is plenty.

 

You can go on about how he's not a passing stud like Manning but the bottom line is that he wins games.  He is undefeated in the playoffs (10-0 I believe) and doesn't make mistakes.

 

As to the Terrell Davis comparison, 1) TD wasn't the leader on his team, but certainly was a huge contributor 2) It was only 2 super bowls, not 3 out of 4 3) TD didn't get 2 super bowl MVPs.

 

Brady is a lock for the HOF.

 

693483[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Brady isn't a lock, if his career ended with an injury next year I don't think he'd get in never mind forst ballot. You have zoned in on the rings and your TD analogy with 2 rings opposed to 3 is IMO ridiculous. Let's see the HOF, if you have a short career but were very good starts at 3? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at Gale Sayers.

 

694581[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I hope you are kidding. You are comparing Sayers to Brady now? OK. The man was a game breaking fool and could carry his team in a game. Not so with Brady. Or maybe he can but really hasn't had to show it with the team he's got around him. Again time will tell, he's not a lock but I'm sure with a more years under his belt he will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Brady has started for not quite 4 years, and he is being touted as a hall of famer?

 

Sorry, but even with the 3 rings, that's just lame. 

691210[/snapback]

 

 

 

I think he'll be there eventually, but let it play out...four years..no matter how good..is not enough time.

 

691522[/snapback]

 

 

 

Winning is important but, the HOF is about being a great player. 3 or 4 years of stats, good or not doesn't get you to the HOF, IMO anyway.

692448[/snapback]

 

 

 

Is he HOF worthy?  I don't think anyone would be after 4 years, no matter what they did, but I think he will certianly get there regardless of who his coach is going forward.

 

694555[/snapback]

 

 

 

I hope you are kidding. You are comparing Sayers to Brady now? OK. The man was a game breaking fool and could carry his team in a game. Not so with Brady. Or maybe he can but really hasn't had to show it with the team he's got around him. Again time will tell, he's not a lock but I'm sure with a more years under his belt he will be.

 

694832[/snapback]

 

 

 

Well, no, I'm not comparing Sayers to Brady. What I am doing is pointing out the fact that the statement has been made several times in this post, even by yourself that 4 years of stats isn't good enough to make the HOF....while Sayers played the better part of 5 years and made it (ok, not 4 but you get my point).

 

I will say a four year career is a short amount of time to discuss a player's impact on the game and how much they deserve to get in to the HOF. I personally don't think a flash in the pan player should get the same consideration as a player that was great for many years. The HOF is supposed to be exclusive....lets keep it that way (hello baseball?!).

Edited by I Like Soup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sayers is the exception, the way Koufax was the exception in baseball. Those two players dominated the sport, but only for a few short years. Bardy's team has dominated the sport, but Brady has not dominated the QB position the way Kofax and Sayers dominated thier positions. That is why I think the comparison doesn't hold water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Sayers, I'd have to say he was LESS dominant than, say, Terrell Davis, and his team was certainly less successful.

 

I think he is an extreme exception to the rule - purely on #s and length of career, NOBODY will ever get in with a resume similar to his again. Maybe if Kurt Warner had been hit by a bus after the '01 season, he'd have made it. But guys like Terrell Davis and Sterling Sharpe, who were putting up dominant, Hall of Fame type numbers until derailed by injury, will only make it as veterans committee guys, if at all. Sayers lucked out getting in, IMO.

 

And before some get up in arms - I'm not really trying to rip Sayers' production or impact on the game, just comparing his career in terms of length and accomplishment to some modern-day players. Looking at his numbers, he had 2-3 dominant years and a couple of solid ones (yes, I know he was a great kick returner; that is relevant when Mel Gray gets in). By the criteria used today, that wouldn't get him in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His guarantee is bull; "is Brady in or not" as of this moment is a hypothetical. The only way to tell would be for him to lose a leg this offseason and have to see if he makes the HoF in 5 years with a 4 year career.

 

The topic is nice fodder for an offseason discussion though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

From Yahoo Sports!

 

Strengths: Has outstanding mechanics and off-the-charts football intelligence. Processes information quickly and regularly finds his second, third and fourth options. Audibles effectively and handles pressure phenomenally well. Has underrated size, athleticism and arm strength. Puts zip on the deep out. Has a picture-perfect high release, excellent quickness setting up and quick feet. Can make all the throws. Has superb accuracy, usually hits receivers in stride and shows a deft touch on shorter throws. Is an exceptional ballhandler and play-fake artist. Rarely carries a mistake over to the next play.

Weaknesses: Isn't much of a scrambler. Gambles once in a while but normally isn't careless with the ball.

Bottom line: Brady is an unrivaled caretaker quarterback, and though he doesn't have to carry New England's offense, he can when necessary. He never seems to face a situation or defense for which he isn't prepared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There had to be some special teams guy or backup or such who was on the Cowboys or 70's Steelers or 80's 49'ers or 60's Packers for all of their Super Bowls.

 

This could be a similar situation. Granted Brady is a starter, but this is kind of the "no-name" offense. Are any of the "No Name Defense" guys in the Hall?

 

It's the classic all stats no wins (Marino?) vs. no stats and all wins (Brady). For my team, I'd rather have Brady than Marino, hands down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Troy Aikman is, Tom Brady sure is.

 

943937[/snapback]

 

 

 

Aikman has 33000 passing yds and 165 tds; plus he performed solidly for some not-very-good teams as his career wound down. Brady doesn't have 15000 yds or 100 tds yet.

 

I'm not saying stats are the be-all, end-all, but performing well with Weis' departure (and perhaps after Belicheck leaves) would certainly establish him as more than a "system" qb.

 

I think he's certainly got a good start, but he needs a bit more experience on his resume, so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information