quote:

Originally posted by Dom'n'Vin'sDad:
He needs a few more years to add to his body of work before you go there, Ice.

I think Terry Bradshaw agrees with you.

I would probably put Marino, Elway, Aikman, Montana, Favre, Unaitis, and Kelly ahead of Brady. It’s really hard to make comparisons between the quarterbacks from years ago with the quarterbacks of today though. The game is vastly different than it used to be. The players are bigger and faster now and different offenses are employed. Brady will no doubt be a Hall-of-Famer but he still has a lot to prove.

Altaholic-I think Roger Staubach was a better quarterback than Aikman.
I'm glad I watched the Dallas game through a haze of pain killers.

quote:

Originally posted by Altaholic:
I would probably put Marino, Elway, Aikman, Montana, Favre, Unaitis, and Kelly ahead of Brady. It’s really hard to make comparisons between the quarterbacks from years ago with the quarterbacks of today though. The game is vastly different than it used to be. The players are bigger and faster now and different offenses are employed. Brady will no doubt be a Hall-of-Famer but he still has a lot to prove.

3 (soon to be 4) Super Bowl rings don't need any further proof.

Jim Kelly??? Ahead of Brady??? HAHAHAHAHA

Jim Kelly might be ahead of Warren Moon and Dan Fouts.

quote:

Originally posted by Altaholic:
I would probably put Marino, Elway, Aikman, Montana, Favre, Unaitis, and Kelly ahead of Brady. It’s really hard to make comparisons between the quarterbacks from years ago with the quarterbacks of today though. The game is vastly different than it used to be. The players are bigger and faster now and different offenses are employed. Brady will no doubt be a Hall-of-Famer but he still has a lot to prove.

What?

quote:

Originally posted by marcb7:
What?

Just what I said - IMO Brady still can not categorized with the above named QBs. That's What!

What? Are we talking play station football? Get a clue!! Jim Kelly, he's not even close.

quote:

Originally posted by marcb7:
What? Are we talking play station football? Get a clue!! Jim Kelly, he's not even close.

Dude, Chill out and get your panties out of a wad. It’s called an OPINION. Ever heard of it?

Yeah and thats my OPINION!

quote:

Originally posted by Markiemark:
Jim Kelly might be ahead of Warren Moon and Dan Fouts.

Moon probably, Fouts......

quote:

Originally posted by Foghorn:

quote:

Originally posted by Markiemark:
Jim Kelly might be ahead of Warren Moon and Dan Fouts.

Moon probably, Fouts......

ok, then.... Drew Bledsoe ??

You guys seem to be forgetting that Jim Kelly played in 4 pro bowls, was a 3 time All-Pro selection, and was inducted into the Hall of Fame. And although he never won a Super Bowl, he quarterbacked his team to 4 of them. He also managed to compile some nice statistics during his tenure in the NFL. Yea, looks like a crappy career to me!!

I don't think anybody ever said Kelly had a bad career but does having better stats actually make you a better player? If so Bledsoe is far superior to Brady. Anybody actually care to try and make that argument? Favre has every major statistical category to his credit. Does that make him better than every other quarterback that ever played? I doubt anyone would try to argue that either, I'd be hard pressed to put him in the top 10 even though I like him a lot and love what he's doing this year.

The thing that counts to me is rings, and the way Brady won his three with a bunch of second rate recievers tells me all I need to know about who's the best of the best. All the other greats had Hall of Fame recievers with them, brady had who until now? Givens, Patten, Caldwell and Branch. How many of them are headed to Canton? Every reciever he ever had except Troy Brown has left for more money and never been heard from again. He elevated those guys from average to what they were in New England. Bradshaw and Montana would be my second and third choices, but they were surrounded with complimentary hall of fame players in a non salary cap era. Imagine Brady and Moss together in their primes for as long as Montana and Rice played. Brady won 3 rings without him, he could have had 4 last year with any reciever that could catch the first down pass Caldwell dropped. Maybe 5 this year ... you probably get where I'm going with this.

Just my opinion, feel free to argue yours. I've learned to enjoy the debate over Brady since the day he replaced Bledsoe. My best friends right now are just admitting he was the right choice, and that's not a knock on Bledsoe who along with Parcells and Kraft got this team headed to where they are now from the pile of s**t they used to be. I just go with the guy who stays cool under pressure and wins, Drew could never do that. After that it was Brady/Manning, also settled in my book. Now it's on to the greatest of all time debate. To many apparently only a long drawn out career with record book stats will prove it, that was the Brady/Manning argument before now. Marino/Montana, Stats vs Wins. What makes a better QB to you I guess determins how you see this. To me if he retired now he'd be a modern day Jim Brown. Arguably the best RB ever and he only played 9 seasons. This is Bradys 8th.

I can see an argument for a very few other possibilities but I think over time those arguments too will fall by the wayside. In my book if he wins another ring this year, for Superbowl era QB's, Brady is the best ever end of story.

quote:

What bubbly do you have iced?

Almost forgot, assuming I haven't already drank too many beverages to appreciate it I might go with a 1990 Dom P Oenotheque. If I'm past that point then a Domaine Chandon Reserve Pinot will probably do just fine For 20 bucks it's tasty stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Altaholic:
You guys seem to be forgetting that Jim Kelly played in 4 pro bowls, was a 3 time All-Pro selection, and was inducted into the Hall of Fame. And although he never won a Super Bowl, he quarterbacked his team to 4 of them. He also managed to compile some nice statistics during his tenure in the NFL. Yea, looks like a crappy career to me!!

That's nice but he's no Tom Brady...

If you are talking about number of championships, you may want to add Bart Starr to the list after leading the Packers to NFL championships in '61, '62, and '65 as well as winning the Super Bowl in '66 and '67. That is a pretty good run. Difficult to say that as I am a Unitas fan and some of those were run through the Colts.

The most difficult part of comparing players from different eras is the affect the rule changes have had as wide receivers have MUCH more freedom now in not being allowed to be touched after 5 yards. The NFL proposed the rule change to increase scoring in an effort to create more interest and ultimately more money for the league which resulted in alot of new records on the offensive side of the line. This should not be surprising as it was designed for that specific purpose. Prior to the rule change, receivers could be knocked out of their route before the ball was thrown anywhere on the field and timing patterns were MUCH more difficult to execute. Can you imagine any wide receiver going downfield 15 yards, ready to maintain his route, then seeing he either has to alter his route or get hit by the defensive back as the QB has not thrown the ball yet? Where the heck does the QB throw the ball and when? This is only one rule change that has helped teams score more points. No more Deacon Jones "bitch slapping" of the offensive lineman, no stickum ala Lester Hayes, etc. I can't really think of one rule change that has benefited the defense.

Brady is one of the best ever and works great within a system that appears to make the unit better than the individuals. With Brady having great talent at reading defenses and taking what is given, he excels. I can appreciate his talents on the field. Personally, I don't think that he should have one of his rings due to the tuck rule call against the Raiders. For me, just a flawed call that the league found necessary to change after the fact. Basically, if a QB pumped his arm, he could go running around the field with the ball out and NEVER fumble as he never tucked the ball, BS. If the ball would have been a baby, it could have been breast fed, it was that close to Brady. Bryan Cox, then a linebacker with the Pats put it best when he heard the call, "They just got F#&$*D!!!" I had never heard of the tuck rule prior to that game. When the NFL has to change a rule because of a specific call, it was not the correct rule or call. Just hope the refs let the games be decided on the field and not because of incorrect calls or make-up calls. The Pats, Packers, Giants, and Chargers are very capable of winning things on their own without anyone's help.

Really looking forward to some good games this Sunday. Need to look in the locker to find some good wines to drink. Enjoy. One way or another we will all see history as either the Pats will be the first 17-0 team lose their first game or the Pats set the record for most games won in one individual season.

It is very, very difficult to compare QB's of different eras based on stats. Are today's players bigger, stronger, faster? Yes. But think about what DB's were able to get away with in the past. Now, if they so much as sneeze on a WR, the flags are being thrown. Different, different game....

That being said, I would put Brady above Kelly and Aikman, but behind, Montana, Bradshaw, Unitas, Favre, Elway, Marino, and Young....

lol

quote:

Originally posted by TBird:
lol

Thanks for the laugh.

I have mixed feelings about the Green Bay game. It's going to be too damn cold for either team to play its best game. Brett will handle the cold but I'm not sure about the rest of the team. I thought I read that GB is the second youngest team in the NFL. If that's true they won't have an advantage in this cold. GB should have a retractable dome.

I don't think any football game should be played in a dome. The weather makes it exciting and different every week. How boring would the history of the game be without the Ice Bowl, the snow plow game, the snow/tuck game in New England and the countless other games made different and more fun to watch becuase of the weather.

As far as the Packers specifically, Green Bay is the smallest city to support a major professional sports team. They have just over 100,000 people and probably could not afford a dome if they wanted one, but with Lambaugh Field why would you change? That would be like bulldozing Fenway for a dome. Thanks but no thanks. I think the home field advantage for cold weather teams late in the year is huge against dome teams and warm weather teams. Favre is 43-5 at home with game temp below 34, why would you change that?

Go Pats!!

quote:

Originally posted by TBird:
lol

Auch du meine gute, Ich stimme vollständig zu.

They shouldn't play the game in Green Bay in this weather. Somebody's going to get hurt and several players will get frostbite.

A few years ago, I met Jethro Pugh and he told me he got frostbite in the Ice Bowl and that his fingers and toes bleed when he gets cold.

Gehen Sie Riesen!

quote:

Originally posted by PURPLE:

quote:

Originally posted by TBird:
lol

Auch du meine gute, Ich stimme vollständig zu.