This afternoon I was watching "First Take" (a show that I ordinarily find incredibly annoying) and they were having an interesting discussion. Brian Billick was the guest, so he and Stephen A. were talking about comments made by Philip Rivers recently made on "The Dan Patrick Show." Specifically what Rivers said when he was asked his opinion on whether or not Tom Brady is the greatest quarterback of all time.
Brady's supporters point mainly to his championships and the fact that he's been under center for the Patriots' entire two-decade run of dominance. They win the division and play in the AFC Championship Game every year, have been to the Super Bowl nine times and won six Lombardi Trophies. Although Rivers, not surprisingly, doesn't think you can base the GOAT conversation on championships alone (which is the same argument used by the LeBron people in the LeBron vs. Jordan debate).
Now, I'm not trying to take anything away from Brady here. He'll obviously be a first-ballot Hall of Famer five years after he actually retires, assuming he eventually does at some point. And if he's not the greatest quarterback of all-time, he at least belongs in the discussion. I don't think he deserves all the credit for the Patriots' dominance over the past 20 years, but the fact that they've continued it this long with him as the constant, but so many different supporting characters (many of whom you wouldn't consider "stars"), also speaks highly in his favor.
Frankly, Rivers' comments came off as a little bit petty. He's never beaten Brady in his career and has never enjoyed the same type of team success. But he does have a point about the championships. The Patriots have been involved in some crazy Super Bowls. If not for the Giants and Nick Foles, they could easily be 9-0. But then again, if not for incredibly dumb play calls by Seattle and Atlanta, they could be 4-5.
Although, I think the point Rivers was trying to make was that you can't base your argument on championships alone (especially because the Patriots don't let anybody else win any!). The name Rivers threw out there as his choice was Dan Marino, who lost the only Super Bowl he ever played in. Warren Moon never reached the Super Bowl. Neither did another Charger, Dan Fouts. Jim Kelly was 0-4. Meanwhile, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Jeff Hostetler and Mark Rypien are among the quaterbacks who have won Super Bowls...and nobody's confusing them with all-time greats!
We're blessed to be in an era of some all-time great quarterbacks. Besides Brady, there are three other active QBs who appear to be Hall of Fame locks (Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger), two who very likely will get in (Rivers and Eli Manning), and some others (including Russell Wilson and Matt Ryan) who are well on their way to at least being the subject of some intense debate when their time comes.
And that's where the conversation got interesting. Because it led to the "what if" game. How many rings would Brady have if he didn't play for the Patriots? Or, perhaps more tellingly, how many rings would those other guys have if they did?
For the sake of this discussion, we're assuming that the other half of Bradicheck has still been in New England this whole time. But we're gonna swap out the quarterbacks. And we might as well start with Rivers. Now, it's obvious that the talent in New England is much better than that of Rivers' teammates throughout most of his time with the Chargers. But if you were to drop Rivers in New England instead of Brady, I think it's safe to say he'd have at least one ring. Probably two. Six though? Definitely not!
Next up is Drew Brees, whose consistent regular season numbers blow Brady out of the water, but only has that one Super Bowl appearance and title. Brees and Brady are probably the most similar in terms of style and longevity. But the rings obviously aren't even close. Still, you put Brees on the Patriots, they've still got at least four of their titles. Maybe five. All six? Questionable.
Then there's Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers has been generally accepted as the most talented QB in the game for several years now. Yet, like Brees, he only has one Super Bowl ring to show for his incredible career. This is a tough one because Rodgers has had plenty of talent around him, yet the Packers have continually underachieved. He's a gunslinger and needs good receivers. But I'm sure he would've been able to make it work in New England. Like Brees, I'll give him four rings with the Patriots.
Roethlisberger is the rare case of a QB who probably wouldn't have been as successful in New England. He hasn't done too badly for himself in Pittsburgh with his three rings, but it's been 10 years since the Steelers' last Super Bowl appearance (and he got a lot of the blame for their locker room discord). I can see a Roethlisberger-led Patriots team winning two, maybe three championships, but no more.
If not for Eli Manning and the Giants, Brady and the Patriots would have eight rings instead of six. They've twice had Bradicheck's number on the first Sunday in February, and it's hard to imagine things going that much differently if they'd switched places. I'm not saying Eli gets six. But he probably does get at least one more and pass Peyton.
The three other active QB's who've won the Super Bowl as a starter are Russell Wilson, Joe Flacco and Nick Foles. Wilson hasn't been around nearly as long as Brady, so it's hard to imagine he'd have more than one or two rings right now if he was on New England instead. Flacco is the only AFC quarterback not named Brady, Manning or Roethlisberger to start a Super Bowl in the past 16 years, which is an achievement in itself. Would the Patriots have six wins with him under center, though? Most likely not. As for Foles, who beat them as an Eagles backup two years ago, it's hard to imagine him with more than one (maybe two) in New England.
Those young guys are still writing their stories. You've gotta figure Patrick Mahomes and Jared Goff will each get one eventually. Same deal with Matt Ryan. But if they don't, they fall into that same boat as Marino, Moon and Fouts...and Rivers. Regardless, they're not gonna catch Brady. Six and counting. That's just ridiculous!
Regardless of what you think about using Super Bowl titles as a qualifier for "greatest of all-time," there's no denying that Tom Brady wouldn't have six if he were playing for any other team or that the Patriots likely wouldn't have six if they had another quarterback. So, whether it's unfair to compare him with others based on that or not, those six rings make him stand head-and-shoulders above the crowd, at least in one respect.
Like any "greatest of all-time" debate, the answer is subjective. Just like the criteria each person uses to make their decision is subjective. But the one objective piece of information we have regarding Tom Brady is Super Bowl championships. And in that area, he stands alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment