First of all, yeah I hate the Patriots, but it's a fun hatred, and it's not to the point that I can't objectively appreciate talent when I see it. They've had some of the best play callers and coordinators of all time. And their defense, though it's never been entirely elite, has really stepped it up at key moments several times. So, yeah, my evaluation of Brady isn't blind, it comes from a troutton of watching football over the course of nearly 30 years.

Quote Originally Posted by Bunny View Post
This is largely bulltit. The NFL, like anything, evolves over time. As medical research is done, the game will evolve to best reflect said research. If we are going to say that it is unfair to compare Drew Brees' achievements to that of Dan Marino, then we should also make a caveat to say that it is unfair to compare Dan Marion, or any relatively modern player, to any of the first great football players who played the game without pads and a single leather helmet. The game evolves and the rules evolve with it. Get over it.
It's not fair to compare any relatively modern QB to those early guys. I'm not sure what there is to get over. Your position that the game changes over time is exactly my point. Is it sensible to compare the intelligences of humans and monkeys, or the hunting ability of a poodle vs a wolf? The game evolved, and with it also the definition of quality QBing. Many modern QBs would have been terrible 30-40 years ago and many of the star QBs of that era wouldn't be as good on a modern team. Or actually, it's more accurate to say that we have no idea how they would actually be flip-flopped because of those differences. In other words, there's no sense in comparing them.

Quote Originally Posted by Bunny View Post
The last half of that specific paragraph makes no sense. Does the NFL care about money? Yes. The NFL is, first and foremost, a business. Without money, the sport would die. However, without big names like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Bress, etc. fans would lose interest and the money would wither and die out. Big name players like Brady and Manning, who "can't take a hit" are one of the key reasons that the game is as lucrative as it is these days. So yes, the NFL cares about money, but it also cares about big name players because they are the gateway into making money.
I'm not sure why you're getting irked at me for saying something and then proving my point for me. The point isn't about whether or not the NFL would be validated in protecting its marketable icons because of money. The problem is they don't admit that's the reason and instead make it about the players' health, as if they're doing it for altruistic humanitarian reasons. That's called duplicitous and it's not something I value.

So there's a lot of talk about Brady being the best ever, basically #1.
As for Brady being the best QB ever? No. Not by a longshot.
(emphasis mine)
So, I read: "not #1, not even close" Sounds to me like that means he's overrated.

Saying the Brady is a horrible QB or that he is overrated is, well, dumb.
...
So anyway, I don't think anyone ever has tried to make the claim that Brady's a horrible QB. He's a good QB who looks a lot better than he actually is because of coaching and other factors.

I'm definitely on board the Montana express. I grew up a Bengals fan (they were good in the 80's I swear). I had undying fanatical faith in my team. Nothing short of a football god could have stopped them, and that's exactly what it took. What a game that was.

Brees has the potential to make it really high on the list. When he's in overdrive there's nobody better, he's just superhuman sometimes. I don't know how SF won that game a few weeks ago. It was astonishing. But damn it was a good game, so who cares.