Why does everyone pull out the stat books and say a loss isn't that bad, or that the yards make an MVP when Brady loses, but when Rodgers loses everyone says all that matters is who won, put TDs on the board when it matters, and "le bend but don't break" ???
Keep that same energy, guys. Unless you want to tell me Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees are the actual GOAT QBs of all time and Brady is just an imposter.
Because in Rodgers biggest losses, like the 2014 NFC game, he played like shit. Brady didn't play like shit today
Why is that whenever Brady wins it's the "system" but whenever literally anybody else wins it's their skill?
So then what would you say your rule means about Brady if we consider the 06 playoff game against San Francisco?
And you still haven't told me why this doesn't mean Brees isn't the GOAT discussion either.
Let's be consistent here, Brady fans.
Why is it that whenever Brady wins it's his skill, and whenever he loses its "all the pieces weren't there"? For all intents and purposes the MVP should always go to either Gronk, White, or Amendola by those metrics.
Brees barely even makes the playoffs. No playoff games is worse than playoff losses. And it's because Brady has wins to offset his losses whereas Rodgers has only even made the big game once and that's because his defense saved him in the NFCCG
To be honest, it's hard for me as an oldfag to consider any quarterback in the modern era the GOAT. The rules are so ridiculously slanted towards the offensive game these days that it's kind of hard for me to tell how good these quarterbacks actually are. Everything in the NFL has become an accessory of the passing game, including defenses.
>you still haven't told me why this doesn't mean Brees isn't the GOAT discussion either.
Because Brees hasn't won five Super Bowls. Brady's lost more Super Bowls than Brees has even been to.
You’re just imagining that because you have a victim complex and aspergers.
So does that make Charles Hale the best defensive player of all time, or is that a retarded argument because maybe rings aren't the end all be all?
So you're saying stats don't matter, only who wins when it matters and has the necessary wins to offset their loses? Is Eli the GOAT then? Hes 8-4 in the playoffs and has two rings in two appearances, so by all of your accounts for this post, he blows Brady out of the water. Or is this just you arbitrarily cherry picking from different columns so you can call Brady the GOAT instead of picking one metric and sticking to it?
*Charles Haley
>Hes 8-4 in the playoffs and has two rings in two appearances, so by all of your accounts for this post, he blows Brady out of the water.
In literally what respect is two superbowl wins more impressive than five?
By this respect
>And it's because Brady has wins to offset his losses whereas Rodgers ...
Stats and Wins both matter; Brady has both and Rodgers doesn't
And how is that contradiction? He's lost three but won five. Which is still more wins than Eli or Rodgers perfect record combined.
When the 2 you win are your only 2 appearances. Unless you're telling me superbowl appearances matter most. In which case, is Bill Romanowski the goat LB? He's 4 for 6 on superb owl appearances!
Or is this another retarded argument because rings probably don't matter?
>When the 2 you win are your only 2 appearances.
So it's better to fail against lesser competition than lose to the actual champions?
So if stats and wins both matter, why arbitrarily decide the degree to which either matter? By that argument, do we say Big Ben is the greatest of all time? He's got tons of playoff wins and decent metrics, albeit lined up in a different fashion from Brady.
So what would you say about the Patriots then? Brady has been in the league since 2000, yet only has 8 appearances. This means he's lost to lesser competition 10 times, right? Meanwhile the true GOAT, Russell Wilson has been in the league for 6 years, has a ring, numerous playoff wins, great stats, and has lost to the actual champions.
Keep that same energy, pal.
>yet only has 8 appearances
>tons of playoff wins
Brady has double the wins and better stats. You going to argue he's better than Brady?
can you at least acknowledge your arguments don't work because the positions you're trying to compare do don't have nearly the same correlation of individual performance to the team's success as QB, or are you mentally deficient
>yet only has 8 appearances
Name another player that's made the SB 8 times?
Maybe you should step and use your brain for once and actually think about how ridiculous your stance is. You're saying that Tom Brady would need to win 16 superbowls otherwise he's not great.
It's like Tom being around has made you forget how insanely difficult it actually is for a team to make, let alone win the superbowl.
Depends. Are we going to draw a line in the sand on what defines a GOAT QB, or are we going to keep shifting goalposts, after we realize someone beats Brady on the thing you all claim matter most?
Yup. Only 8 in 18 years. Meanwhile Russell has 2 in 6 and had actually appeared in the playoffs 5 out of the 6 years he's been in the league. Per the metric of not "losing to lesser opponents" and "playoff appearances mattering the most".
My arguments do work actually. I'm not trying to say who's the goat. I'm just trying to find out why people keep shifting the goalposts so they can say Brady is the goat.
Who said Tom isn't great? I just want to know where the lines are drawn in the sand, because a lot of salty people pulled out the stat book last night to justify that loss and it seemed really familiar to what Green Bay fans tend to be called out for. Just sayin.
You realize 8/18 is a higher number than 2/6, right?
What are you even trying to say? Are you really going to sit here and argue that someone who has half as many wins as Brady in the post season with worse stats is actually better than him? Green bay fans get shit on because they desperately keep trying to push Rodgers as a god face of the league when he keeps shitting the bed in the important games
>American education
You arguments are completely nonsensical if you're trying to argue the point that Russell Wilson has a better post season success to Tom Brady when he only has 1/5th of the superbowl wins.
You realize 5/6 is on par with 15/18, right? And Russells numbers were accomplished in less time, right?
So what matters? Wins or stats? Or are you going to say both and make up where the goal post goes between the two?
I feel the nonsensical status of the argument depends on where we draw the lines in the sand. Something which I am still waiting on you Brady fans to tell me. If it's a matter of who has the most wins, the clearly the GOAT player is Charles Haley. The GOAT QB can be Brady, but Haley is the GOAT player.
In terms of raw talent Rodgers btfo of Brady and probably every other QB to ever play the game. Put Brady on the Packers with the shit talent they have in an actual competitive conference and he'd struggle to make the playoffs year in and year out.
They both do matter of course; you can't separate them. Brady is the GOAT because he has the stats and wins
because he enjoys getting fucked in the ass.
>You realize 5/6 is on par with 15/18, right? And Russells numbers were accomplished in less time, right?
They aren't on par because they didn't result in the same amount of championship wins.
Why would Haley be the GOAT player when he has less influence on his teams success to a QB? Are you new to football or something?
>Why would Haley be the GOAT player when he has less influence on his teams success to a QB?
So Brady lost the game last night, and not his defense. Got it.
Yes? He wasn't the main contributing factor to the loss but his team did lose.
>Guys It’s been 3 weeks since anyone’s talked about the packers
>We need to make this super bowl about Aaron Rodgers
I hate people living in Wisconsin. Myself included
Pretty much, a ten point lead used to be a big deal. Now it's meaningless thanks to all the rule changes that favor the offense. Hard to take modern day statistics and comebacks seriously, though he was spectacular in the fourth quarter of that Seahawks game, he's definitely up there.
>not the main contributing factor to the loss
>QB is the most influential position
Huh
OP kind of has a point. What does define a GOAT QB? People seem to always shift the goalposts when we talk about this.