Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
GasLightStreet
You do know if Brees had gotten to more Super Bowls he would've set so many records Brady wouldn't have any of that.

And how many championships would Karl Malone or Patrick Ewing have if Michael Jordan had never existed?

Brees probably has more natural passing gifts. He has 4000 more yards and is tied with Brady for TDs (488) despite having one less year in the league.

Brady benefits from being in Belichick's system, but I'd still take Brady's mental edge in high-pressure situations any day.

It's just a fact that Brees is a better QB than Brady. His stats prove that he would've set various Super Bowl records.

Facts are verifiable. Lots of also rans in the GOAT category.
Hate him, but Brady has the receipts that matter.

Sure, 5 SBs. But stats wise, Brees is better and he will finish his career ranked higher than Brady. Which is more than enough to be the GQBOAT.

Quarterbacks aren't measured by stats.

Brees' superior stats don't prove anything other than that which is self-evident: he's a more accomplished passer in the regular season. Nothing about his career indicates he could have won more Super Bowls...if so, he would have done it.

Montana was considered the best because of 4-0. Elway and Manning have the reputation (fair or not) for being chokers (2-3 because of Terrell Davis/Shannon Sharpe, and 2-2 due to an all-time great defense). The knock on Marino is that he never won a SB.

Yeah, it's a team sport and you need the pieces around you, but push comes to shove, great quarterbacks can will a team to a championship. Brees is awesome and his stats are amazing but he hasn't had a better career.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-02-07 03:41 by keefriff99.

Congrats to all Eagles fans. As a Seahawks fan, i know what it feels like
when your teams wins its 1st SB.

The big difference will our win is that we had no property damage in our city
during and after the win.

We has 750,000 show at at the SB parade will no problems and no arrests.

Please tell me that the Liberty Bell is still where it is supposed to be.

It does have a crack in it...

Quote
Koen
It does have a crack in it...

lol

Quote
keefriff99
Quarterbacks aren't measured by stats.

Brees' superior stats don't prove anything other than that which is self-evident: he's a more accomplished passer in the regular season. Nothing about his career indicates he could have won more Super Bowls...if so, he would have done it.

Montana was considered the best because of 4-0. Elway and Manning have the reputation (fair or not) for being chokers (2-3 because of Terrell Davis/Shannon Sharpe, and 2-2 due to an all-time great defense). The knock on Marino is that he never won a SB.

Yeah, it's a team sport and you need the pieces around you, but push comes to shove, great quarterbacks can will a team to a championship. Brees is awesome and his stats are amazing but he hasn't had a better career.

Quarterbacks are too measured by stats. That's ridiculous.

"Brees' superior stats don't prove anything other than that which is self-evident: he's a more accomplished passer in the regular season." Well, that's what all those stats are about. More accomplished passer is an understatement. That's why you'll find things saying Brees is better than Brady and a lot of other QBs.

Nothing about Brees' career indicates he would've won more Super Bowls? Well of course not if you go by how bad the Saints got.

However that means nothing: Anyone knows if he was on a better team what could've happened. Besides, first you say "Nothing about his career indicates he could have won more Super Bowls", which is garbage because nothing about Brady and Montana's careers indicate that they would've won Super Bowls - that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read - but then you say "it's a team sport and you need the pieces around you". So, what you're saying but not really saying is if Cleveland had a great QB they would get to the championship JUST BECAUSE of the QB.

That's utter nonsense. A team that sucks with a great QB can be willed to the championship game. That's never happened but you say it can. What you say is nonsense. A great QB playing good with good players is one thing but the rest of that is rubbish.

Needing "the pieces around you" includes good kickers - something a QB can't will to do is to make the kicker kick good. Hell, the kicker may've gotten the team to the championship.

Since "great quarterbacks can will a team to a championship" does that mean Marino and Kelly are great quarterbacks because they got to a championship? Because they certainly were great QBs regardless of the bloated 'he's great because he won x amount of Super Bowls' garbage.

That would make Terry Bradshaw better than Montana because Bradshaw did it first. Which is something I doubt anyone has ever said. Bradshaw went 4-0 in Super Bowls. Yet somehow Bradshaw hardly ever gets mentioned and when he does it's a very short amount of time. Montana is the only other QB to go 4-0 in Super Bowls.

So, indeed, Brees would have more rings. Hell, Rodgers would have more rings if he was on a better team. The Patriots didn't win 5 Super Bowls because of Brady, because if they did, they lost 3 Super Bowls because of Brady.

Perhaps I am oversimplifying, but what just happened in the NFC playoffs and SB seems to demonstrate that a good QB can win with the right pieces in place on the rest of the team. Foles was good enough to step in when Wentz went down because the other pieces were in place, especially receivers and O-line. However, he had to perform at a high level to make it all work. If the Eagles had a typical journeyman back-up in that role, the outcome would have been different.

HBK

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
keefriff99
Quarterbacks aren't measured by stats.

Brees' superior stats don't prove anything other than that which is self-evident: he's a more accomplished passer in the regular season. Nothing about his career indicates he could have won more Super Bowls...if so, he would have done it.

Montana was considered the best because of 4-0. Elway and Manning have the reputation (fair or not) for being chokers (2-3 because of Terrell Davis/Shannon Sharpe, and 2-2 due to an all-time great defense). The knock on Marino is that he never won a SB.

Yeah, it's a team sport and you need the pieces around you, but push comes to shove, great quarterbacks can will a team to a championship. Brees is awesome and his stats are amazing but he hasn't had a better career.

Quarterbacks are too measured by stats. That's ridiculous.

"Brees' superior stats don't prove anything other than that which is self-evident: he's a more accomplished passer in the regular season." Well, that's what all those stats are about. More accomplished passer is an understatement. That's why you'll find things saying Brees is better than Brady and a lot of other QBs.

Nothing about Brees' career indicates he would've won more Super Bowls? Well of course not if you go by how bad the Saints got.

However that means nothing: Anyone knows if he was on a better team what could've happened. Besides, first you say "Nothing about his career indicates he could have won more Super Bowls", which is garbage because nothing about Brady and Montana's careers indicate that they would've won Super Bowls - that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read - but then you say "it's a team sport and you need the pieces around you". So, what you're saying but not really saying is if Cleveland had a great QB they would get to the championship JUST BECAUSE of the QB.

That's utter nonsense. A team that sucks with a great QB can be willed to the championship game. That's never happened but you say it can. What you say is nonsense. A great QB playing good with good players is one thing but the rest of that is rubbish.

Needing "the pieces around you" includes good kickers - something a QB can't will to do is to make the kicker kick good. Hell, the kicker may've gotten the team to the championship.

Since "great quarterbacks can will a team to a championship" does that mean Marino and Kelly are great quarterbacks because they got to a championship? Because they certainly were great QBs regardless of the bloated 'he's great because he won x amount of Super Bowls' garbage.

That would make Terry Bradshaw better than Montana because Bradshaw did it first. Which is something I doubt anyone has ever said. Bradshaw went 4-0 in Super Bowls. Yet somehow Bradshaw hardly ever gets mentioned and when he does it's a very short amount of time. Montana is the only other QB to go 4-0 in Super Bowls.

So, indeed, Brees would have more rings. Hell, Rodgers would have more rings if he was on a better team. The Patriots didn't win 5 Super Bowls because of Brady, because if they did, they lost 3 Super Bowls because of Brady.

Watch any debate show on ESPN or Fox Sports (First Take, Skip and Shannon, Nick and Cris, Cowherd and Whitlock, etc.) or listen to sports radio...the discussion about greatest quarterbacks always boils down to Super Bowl rings and clutch performances and making the most of the team around you. Very rarely are stats added to the mix. I never heard anyone claim Favre is the greatest ever because of his passing yards.

I'm a big fan of statistics myself, but the fact is that the sports world doesn't lean as heavily on stats to measure greatness in the NFL as they do in other sports. Baseball is almost entirely driven by stats.

Aaron Rodgers has dragged average teams into deep playoff runs before. Hell, you could argue that Brady has dragged several thoroughly average teams into the playoffs, including this year's (weak O line, bad defense), which then got exposed.

Certainly the Patriots have been the best team since Brady took over for Bledsoe in 2001. Except for the 2002 season when they went 9-7, they've consistently been a dominating team. They probably are the greatest NFL team of all time, and if they aren't, they will be, because who has a 17 year span of being that good?

The Detroit Red Wings made the playoffs 25 years in a row, which ties them for 3rd with St Louis (Boston holds the record for 29, Chicago is 2nd with 28). They won the Stanley Cup 4 times out of 5 visits in that span, not exactly dominating, but they did set some impressive records along the way.

Best NHL team ever? No. That is strictly reserved for the Montreal Canadiens. But easily one of the best ever.

It's very different, of course, than the NFL. Either way, it takes a lot of work, a lot of discipline, great leadership and a quite a few good players along the way.

For now, the New England Patriots are the best NFL team ever. But one never knows - it would take a while, and maybe if some team manages to win 6 championships in less time that title might get taken away.

Certainly Brady has a lot to do with it - but is not anywhere near all of it. All one has to do is look at the Edmonton Oilers and their time span with Wayne Gretzky and understand that it's not automatic. It requires a great team.

enquiring minds want to know if Philly will still be standing after today. i hear there is free beer to be had along the parade route.

Parade starts at 11:00. Bud Light is promoting free beer in taverns/pubs along the route as part of their Dilly Dilly ad campaign converted to Philly Philly for the occasion. Expect this to be a raucous celebration but less likely to get out of hand with lots of families in attendance and during daylight hours with massive police presence. No late night drunks.

Philly loves the Eagles, but they have no experience celebrating a Super Bowl win so the crowds will be huge with people coming in from all the suburbs in Jersey, PA and Delaware. Should be no worse than any other cities celebration in terms of bad behavior. Philly bashers may be disappointed.

HBK

Bud Light is promoting free water in beer taverns.

Wonderful. Seeing that Philadelphians love Cheese Whiz, that shouldn't be a problem at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-02-08 17:30 by GasLightStreet.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Certainly the Patriots have been the best team since Brady took over for Bledsoe in 2001. Except for the 2002 season when they went 9-7, they've consistently been a dominating team. They probably are the greatest NFL team of all time, and if they aren't, they will be, because who has a 17 year span of being that good? .

The Patriots are definitely NOT the greatest NFL team of all time. They have never won a Super Bowl by more than 6 points and they needed overtime to get that 6 point victory.

Maybe the Patriots are the greatest for being consistently very good for a 17 year time span but,they were only really "great" for 2 of those seasons.

Don't forget that starting with the season that ended with what became known as Super Bowl I ..... up until Super Bowl 30, Dallas played for the NFL Championship (as it was known for the first few of those years) or NFC Championship 16 out of those 30 seasons.

For the Patriots last 2 championships,they needed coaching errors by the other team to win. The first one,the short-lived "tuck rule" to even get there.

The Patriots always have such an easy path to the Super Bowl. Buffalo and Miami have not been any good since the '90's ..... save maybe one good year by the Dolphins since then. Buffalo was probably the weakest play-off team ever this year. They (Buffalo) got in on a fluke play by the Bengals against Baltimore. Buffalo won a tie-breaker against the Chargers despite losing to them by 40 points because it was a 3 way tie for the last wild card play-off spot.

I have been watching football for the past 35 years and the Jets have only been a real contender maybe 5 times out of those 35 seasons. Only twice that I can remember since the turn of the century.

So the Patriots only have to beat one wild card team at home in order to play the AFC Championship Game at home because they are good (but not really great,except for two times) and always win their division almost by default.

I am not even going to get into a couple of New England's play-off wins against Baltimore when,after those 2 games,I had a lot of doubt as to who really was the better team.

All of the Patriots Super Bowl teams,save 2 of them, have had glaring weaknesses in their respective rosters. Weaknesses that were not there on the '89/'90 San Francisco team or the '92 - '96 Dallas teams as a couple of examples. That could just be a result of the NFL free agency era ,which started somewhere between 1992 to 1994,and more teams in the league ...... 32 versus 28.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Bud Light is promoting free water in beer taverns.

Wonderful. Seeing that Philadelphians love Cheese Whiz, that shouldn't be a problem at all.

Agree about the Bud Light. The rest of your post is kind of trollish, but I took the bait. Philly is a long recognized foody restaurant city and every city is famous for some sort of local junk food delight that bewilders others and most locals. You didn't even mention scrapple . . .

Quote
HouseBoyKnows

Quote
GasLightStreet
Bud Light is promoting free water in beer taverns.

Wonderful. Seeing that Philadelphians love Cheese Whiz, that shouldn't be a problem at all.

Agree about the Bud Light. The rest of your post is kind of trollish, but I took the bait. Philly is a long recognized foody restaurant city and every city is famous for some sort of local junk food delight that bewilders others and most locals. You didn't even mention scrapple . . .

Ah ha ha ha ha. The cheesesteak sandwiches are horrible - and so are the fries. I know there's more to it than that. It's just that... they're touted for that and they're horrible. So yeah, it is trollish - conveniently!

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

Quote
GasLightStreet
Certainly the Patriots have been the best team since Brady took over for Bledsoe in 2001. Except for the 2002 season when they went 9-7, they've consistently been a dominating team. They probably are the greatest NFL team of all time, and if they aren't, they will be, because who has a 17 year span of being that good? .

The Patriots are definitely NOT the greatest NFL team of all time. They have never won a Super Bowl by more than 6 points and they needed overtime to get that 6 point victory.

Maybe the Patriots are the greatest for being consistently very good for a 17 year time span but,they were only really "great" for 2 of those seasons.

Don't forget that starting with the season that ended with what became known as Super Bowl I ..... up until Super Bowl 30, Dallas played for the NFL Championship (as it was known for the first few of those years) or NFC Championship 16 out of those 30 seasons.

For the Patriots last 2 championships,they needed coaching errors by the other team to win. The first one,the short-lived "tuck rule" to even get there.

The Patriots always have such an easy path to the Super Bowl. Buffalo and Miami have not been any good since the '90's ..... save maybe one good year by the Dolphins since then. Buffalo was probably the weakest play-off team ever this year. They (Buffalo) got in on a fluke play by the Bengals against Baltimore. Buffalo won a tie-breaker against the Chargers despite losing to them by 40 points because it was a 3 way tie for the last wild card play-off spot.

I have been watching football for the past 35 years and the Jets have only been a real contender maybe 5 times out of those 35 seasons. Only twice that I can remember since the turn of the century.

So the Patriots only have to beat one wild card team at home in order to play the AFC Championship Game at home because they are good (but not really great,except for two times) and always win their division almost by default.

I am not even going to get into a couple of New England's play-off wins against Baltimore when,after those 2 games,I had a lot of doubt as to who really was the better team.

All of the Patriots Super Bowl teams,save 2 of them, have had glaring weaknesses in their respective rosters. Weaknesses that were not there on the '89/'90 San Francisco team or the '92 - '96 Dallas teams as a couple of examples. That could just be a result of the NFL free agency era ,which started somewhere between 1992 to 1994,and more teams in the league ...... 32 versus 28.

You won't hear me disagree with you. I know they've lucked out on every SB win they've had. I was just going with... "conventional wisdom" regarding their place in NFL history. They have a slight element of possibly greater or the greatest in terms of same coach same QB for the duration.

However, it's why I ended it with a question. If there hasn't, in the way it's talked about, there could be. Dallas being that good for 16 years is equivalent, since of the 17 year span for the Patriots, one season they didn't make the playoffs (as far as I recall in looking at all that).

No matter. The greatest Super Bowl winning franchise remains the Pittsburgh Steelers. New England has been the most. And whatever else. In a couple of weeks hardly anyone will remember until September anyway.