Championship Sunday Discussion

[kaimaru]

I understand that, I was just pointing out that he did have a disadvantage. Also remember that RBs and not QBs were winning MVPs back then

3 times that happened in Brady's entire career. Not in his first 4 years starting, either.

We are talking first 6 years, not first 4

[uscbucsfan1]

1 ankle injury and he won a SB on it.

You're saying he didn't come up gimpy in the loss to us in the Super Bowl?

I'm saying there was no injury report on his ankle prior to last year. Every player limps in games. He had turf toe, but was obviously fine.

[Snake]

In Agreement he has another decade+ to make his case.

But... Even When Brady had statistically eclipsed and tied super bowls with Joe in 2014. Joe was still considered the greatest until 2016.

The bar Bady set is monstrous.

I think it would be a better exercise to figure out what Mahomes would have to achieve to be considered the greatest.

I mean for starters... 8 super bowls (one more than Bady) is no fucking joke of a high mark.

I agree that’s a good exercise. I’ll have to think about it.

The rise from 199.

The comeback drives are historic. 3-28 is legendary.

7 rings is monumental.

Leaving the dynasty for a bottom feeder, and carrying them to the promise land in his first year… without an off-season? It’s almost mythical.

Yes. In terms of narrative, it doesn’t get better than Brady. sixth round pick. Game manager who willed himself into being the best throwing, most precise, most durable, most clutch quarterback in the NFL. Then going to shitty Tampa (OK the roster was stacked) and winning at home. He also happens to have model looks and has never suffered a personal scandal of consequence.

@BucsNBills was right. Tom Brady is the greatest protagonist one could ever dream of.

[Digital_Damage]

That is not what that sentence says, and he did start a game in 2017.

Keep grasping at straws. That would be like me saying Brady only had 6 yards his first year. We started the discussion of their first 6 years starting and Mahomes started out as the best QB in the NFL in his first year starting.

It's not grasping at straws. Your sentence is not factually correct.

[Digital_Damage]

3 times that happened in Brady's entire career. Not in his first 4 years starting, either.

We are talking first 6 years, not first 4

Headshot...

[uscbucsfan1]

Keep grasping at straws. That would be like me saying Brady only had 6 yards his first year. We started the discussion of their first 6 years starting and Mahomes started out as the best QB in the NFL in his first year starting.

It's not grasping at straws. Your sentence is not factually correct.

Lol. Ok.

Brady didn't turn into an elite passer until 2007 and won an MVP. He wasn't even a first team All Pro. The RB argument is dumb. There were always multiple QBs ahead of him until he broke out. Then he became the best QB and the best winner.

[Snake]

Mahomes was certainly more precocious. You can parse out the factors: drafted to a very good offensive HC, had great weapons, came up during the eras of 7-on-7 proliferation and QB camps, different offensive milieu insofar as rules and trends. But he was still the best. Other quarterbacks had good coaches, and good weapons, and shared a milieu.

I wouldn’t take it as a slight towards Brady. If anything, it makes Brady’s legend even bigger. Molding himself from game manager to demigod. throwing for 45 touchdowns as a 42-year-old. Keeping up with the young bucks.

The ability to adapt to eras and compete across generations is a sign of an inner inner circle HOFer. LeBron did it too. When peaks are comparable, you look at things like longevity. The ability to adapt. Portability.

I am a unabashed Tom Brady fan boy. I have been for a long time. I’ll never forget watching the 2007 Patriots lose in the Super Bowl and I’m throwing a bag of chips. Meanwhile, the 25 people around me are all cheering. I can also acknowledge that Mahomes is an incredible talent and is more than worthy of accepting the torch.

This is how it goes.

[uscbucsfan1]

Mahomes was certainly more precocious. You can parse out the factors: drafted to a very good offensive HC, had great weapons, came up during the eras of 7-on-7 proliferation and QB camps, different offensive milieu insofar as rules and trends. But he was still the best. Other quarterbacks had good coaches, and good weapons, and shared a milieu.

I wouldn’t take it as a slight towards Brady. If anything, it makes Brady’s legend even bigger. Molding himself from game manager to demigod. throwing for 45 touchdowns as a 42-year-old. Keeping up with the young bucks.

The ability to adapt to eras and compete across generations is a sign of an inner inner circle HOFer. LeBron did it too. When peaks are comparable, you look at things like longevity. The ability to adapt. Portability.

I am a unabashed Tom Brady fan boy. I have been for a long time. I’ll never forget watching the 2007 Patriots lose in the Super Bowl and I’m throwing a bag of chips. Meanwhile, the 25 people around me are all cheering. I can also acknowledge that Mahomes is an incredible talent and is more than worthy of accepting the torch.

This is how it goes.

Well said.

Agree on all accounts. I also think context comes to play with a title like GOAT. Brady's move to Tampa and win here is something that would be almost impossible for Mahomes to replicate late in his career. It really silenced the last of the Montana hold overs.

But if Mahomes pulled a Tiger and just went on tear, like won the next 5 SBs in a row. I think that would add a different mix to the conversation. That's all this is, a conversation...people like Mike Greenberg who say Mahomes is already the best are lying for clicks. Mahomes is still building his legacy.

AndI absolutely have Tiger over Jack, despite less majors. Tigers run was historically unmatched and again, context is important.

I think there's less than 10% chance Mahomes catches Brady, in my eyes, but better than anyone else.

[Babeinbucland]

Yeah all that was exhausting to read

[kaimaru]

I'm tired too

[Jonny]

Brady is one of the most wildly disrespected QBs I've ever seen. When Brady won his first 3 rings in 4 years, people said he needed 2 more (pass Montana). It was truly his SB win with the Bucs that firmly cemented his GOAT status for a couple of years.

Mahomes somehow leaped over Montana already with just two rings. Now seems like the only person he needs to overcome is Brady and some prominent analysts have already put him ahead.

Imo Mahomes is roughly where Brady was around 05. Once Big Ben, Peyton, Eli, Brees, all from same era as Brady if not younger, started winning Superbowls, it kept taking shine away from Brady's three. During Mahomes era, the two QBs that won SB are Brady and Stafford, both old men.

All of this talk about Mahomes being GOAT status and being compared to Brady will stop with just a couple of seasons of them not winning the Superbowl and one of the other "in their prime" QBs winning at least one.

[uscbucsfan1]

Brady is one of the most wildly disrespected QBs I've ever seen. When Brady won his first 3 rings in 4 years, people said he needed 2 more (pass Montana). It was truly his SB win with the Bucs that firmly cemented his GOAT status for a couple of years.

Fans hate greatness when it isn't their team/player. We've had this discussion about the NBA...when a player starts to win too many championships, they are targeted. It's more about the coverage than anything I think, but we've seen it with Kobe, LeBron, and Steph in the social media era.

Brady routinely was voted the most hated player in the NFL. People assign cheating or rigged to his wins and that torch has been passed on to Mahomes.

It's a different era than Jordan/Montana and other greats that didn't have social media.

[Bootz]

Mahomes was certainly more precocious. You can parse out the factors: drafted to a very good offensive HC, had great weapons, came up during the eras of 7-on-7 proliferation and QB camps, different offensive milieu insofar as rules and trends. But he was still the best. Other quarterbacks had good coaches, and good weapons, and shared a milieu.

I wouldn’t take it as a slight towards Brady. If anything, it makes Brady’s legend even bigger. Molding himself from game manager to demigod. throwing for 45 touchdowns as a 42-year-old. Keeping up with the young bucks.

The ability to adapt to eras and compete across generations is a sign of an inner inner circle HOFer. LeBron did it too. When peaks are comparable, you look at things like longevity. The ability to adapt. Portability.

I am a unabashed Tom Brady fan boy. I have been for a long time. I’ll never forget watching the 2007 Patriots lose in the Super Bowl and I’m throwing a bag of chips. Meanwhile, the 25 people around me are all cheering. I can also acknowledge that Mahomes is an incredible talent and is more than worthy of accepting the torch.

This is how it goes.

Very well thought out and honest take. Those pretending Mahomes and Brady aren't even in the same hemisphere are only kidding themselves and showing their hate towards Mahomes, hate that as @uscbucsfan1 pointed out use to be directed at Tom.

Will Mahomes reach 7? Maybe. Maybe not. But I don't think he has to.

[BuccaNOLEer]

Brady is one of the most wildly disrespected QBs I've ever seen. When Brady won his first 3 rings in 4 years, people said he needed 2 more (pass Montana). It was truly his SB win with the Bucs that firmly cemented his GOAT status for a couple of years.

Mahomes somehow leaped over Montana already with just two rings. Now seems like the only person he needs to overcome is Brady and some prominent analysts have already put him ahead.

Imo Mahomes is roughly where Brady was around 05. Once Big Ben, Peyton, Eli, Brees, all from same era as Brady if not younger, started winning Superbowls, it kept taking shine away from Brady's three. During Mahomes era, the two QBs that won SB are Brady and Stafford, both old men.

All of this talk about Mahomes being GOAT status and being compared to Brady will stop with just a couple of seasons of them not winning the Superbowl and one of the other "in their prime" QBs winning at least one.

Everyone assumed Brady was cheating in the Pats system as they had been busted for cheating several times. When he came to the losingest franchise in NFL history and led them to a Super Bowl win, that truly did cement him as the GOAT

[acmillis]

New question.
What's your definition of "dynasty."
For me, 3 rings in six years (or less) with at least 2 of the 3 being back to back.
What say you?

[Bootz]

I don't think back to back is a requirement. Would you say that the Spurs winning 4 rings from 99-07 wasn't a dynasty just because they didn't go back to back?

[Phantom]

back to back to back to back to back. Now that's dynasty

[Snake]

The Patriots had 9 years between Super Bowls.

[uscbucsfan1]

I don't think back to back is a requirement. Would you say that the Spurs winning 4 rings from 99-07 wasn't a dynasty just because they didn't go back to back?

I consider the Pats dynasty from 2001-2018, but many break them up to 2 different dynasties. '14,'16, and '18 obviously had no back-to-backs, but I don't know anyone doesn't believe that isn't a dynasty.

I don't consider the Chiefs run a dynasty yet. I think it's 3 or more in a relatively short time period.

[Bootz]

I agree. 3 in 5 years sounds a lot better than 2.

[BuccaNOLEer]

New question.
What's your definition of "dynasty."
For me, 3 rings in six years (or less) with at least 2 of the 3 being back to back.
What say you?

I don't think back to back is a requirement. Would you say that the Spurs winning 4 rings from 99-07 wasn't a dynasty just because they didn't go back to back?

A dynasty is remaining a contender for a number of years, not necessarily winning championships every year. The Spurs from 99-07 were a dynasty. The Bulls from 90-98 were a dynasty. The Pats dynasty was from 2011-2018. They made it at least to the AFC title game every year during that time.

[Grahamburn]

Yeah all that was exhausting to read

You read it? Scroll button broke on my mouse.

[Phantom]

New question.
What's your definition of "dynasty."
For me, 3 rings in six years (or less) with at least 2 of the 3 being back to back.
What say you?

I don't think back to back is a requirement. Would you say that the Spurs winning 4 rings from 99-07 wasn't a dynasty just because they didn't go back to back?

A dynasty is remaining a contender for a number of years, not necessarily winning championships every year. The Spurs from 99-07 were a dynasty. The Bulls from 90-98 were a dynasty. The Pats dynasty was from 2011-2018. They made it at least to the AFC title game every year during that time.

UCLA in 70s

[Phantom]

Yeah all that was exhausting to read

You read it? Scroll button broke on my mouse.

Or don't read it. Simple.

[Babeinbucland]

Yeah all that was exhausting to read

You read it? Scroll button broke on my mouse.

[Deja Entendu]

That’s a good question. I used to consider it 3 rings in a span of 4-5 years, but now I think it takes more than 3 for a true dynasty.

For example, if the Chiefs win I don’t consider them a dynasty. Same with the 90s Cowboys or the SF Giants. Dominant teams of their era no doubt, but they just don’t feel like a true dynasty to me. Not when I consider teams like the Patriots, Bulls, and Lakers who have had 6 rings; the Niners with 5; and the mentioned Spurs teams, late 90s Yankees, and 70s Steelers (before my time) with 4.

So personally I’d say 4 titles under one regime/with the same core… or in under 10ish years.

Edit: I forgot to include the Warriors, Celtics, Canadiens, and Edmonton Oilers. Also, all true dynasties.

[Bootz]

New question.
What's your definition of "dynasty."
For me, 3 rings in six years (or less) with at least 2 of the 3 being back to back.
What say you?

I don't think back to back is a requirement. Would you say that the Spurs winning 4 rings from 99-07 wasn't a dynasty just because they didn't go back to back?

A dynasty is remaining a contender for a number of years, not necessarily winning championships every year. The Spurs from 99-07 were a dynasty. The Bulls from 90-98 were a dynasty. The Pats dynasty was from 2011-2018. They made it at least to the AFC title game every year during that time.

This to me is the best definition of a dynasty.

[Deja Entendu]

A dynasty is remaining a contender for a number of years, not necessarily winning championships every year. The Spurs from 99-07 were a dynasty. The Bulls from 90-98 were a dynasty. The Pats dynasty was from 2011-2018. They made it at least to the AFC title game every year during that time.

This to me is the best definition of a dynasty.

There definitely needs to be multiple championships though.

90s Bills and Reid’s Eagles teams don’t get a mention. Same with the Chiefs if they lose next week. I don’t count the Astros either.

If the Chiefs do win, I wouldn’t knock anyone that wants to count them (or the 90s Cowboys). I just personally disagree and think the bar is higher.

[acmillis]

A dynasty is remaining a contender for a number of years, not necessarily winning championships every year. The Spurs from 99-07 were a dynasty. The Bulls from 90-98 were a dynasty. The Pats dynasty was from 2011-2018. They made it at least to the AFC title game every year during that time.

This to me is the best definition of a dynasty.

Just for sake of conversation then:

Are the Warriors really a dynasty?
From 2014-2021 (8 total seasons), they won the title in 15, 17, 18, and 22. However, in two of those seasons, they didn't even make the playoffs, and in one of those non-playoff seasons, they were literally the worst team in the NBA by a wide margin.

[Grahamburn]

This to me is the best definition of a dynasty.

There definitely needs to be multiple championships though.

90s Bills and Reid’s Eagles teams don’t get a mention. Same with the Chiefs if they lose next week. I don’t count the Astros either.

If the Chiefs do win, I wouldn’t knock anyone that wants to count them (or the 90s Cowboys). I just personally disagree and think the bar is higher.

Even if they lose they'll have 2 wins, 4 appearances, and 6 straight AFC Championships? That's about as die nasty as it gets.

[Deja Entendu]

There definitely needs to be multiple championships though.

90s Bills and Reid’s Eagles teams don’t get a mention. Same with the Chiefs if they lose next week. I don’t count the Astros either.

If the Chiefs do win, I wouldn’t knock anyone that wants to count them (or the 90s Cowboys). I just personally disagree and think the bar is higher.

Even if they lose they'll have 2 wins, 4 appearances, and 6 straight AFC Championships? That's about as die nasty as it gets.

Dominant for sure… in their conference. No way I’m slapping the dynasty tag on a team with only 2 SB wins.

See above for teams that are about as dynasty as it gets: 4, 5, and 6 championship WINS.

[uscbucsfan1]

Even if they lose they'll have 2 wins, 4 appearances, and 6 straight AFC Championships? That's about as die nasty as it gets.

Dominant for sure… in their conference. No way I’m slapping the dynasty tag on a team with only 2 SB wins.

See above for teams that are about as dynasty as it gets: 4, 5, and 6 championship WINS.

Even if they have a 9 year break in between like the Pats?

[uscbucsfan1]

This to me is the best definition of a dynasty.

Just for sake of conversation then:

Are the Warriors really a dynasty?
From 2014-2021 (8 total seasons), they won the title in 15, 17, 18, and 22. However, in two of those seasons, they didn't even make the playoffs, and in one of those non-playoff seasons, they were literally the worst team in the NBA by a wide margin.

They went to 6 finals and won 4. 1 year they tanked for a high pick after Steph got injured and another they had injuries all season, but 6 finals in 8 years is pretty historic. Basically what the Bulls did, but they won all 6.

[Backside]

The "you'll never win with D Smith at LT" crowd about to get a second work over...

Dude is blessed to play with the two GOATs

[Deja Entendu]

Dominant for sure… in their conference. No way I’m slapping the dynasty tag on a team with only 2 SB wins.

See above for teams that are about as dynasty as it gets: 4, 5, and 6 championship WINS.

Even if they have a 9 year break in between like the Pats?

The Patriots had a 9 year break between championship wins, but in totality it was: 19 winning seasons, an undefeated regular season, 17 division titles, 13 conf championship appearances, 8 Super Bowl appearances, and 6 titles.

So yes, that’s a dynasty. I’d argue the greatest in the history of the sport.