Recent Facebook debate following Super Bowl LII has put into question whether or not Tom Brady is "the GOAT" (Greatest Of All Time). Because of his recent Super Bowl loss, many are now saying Joe Montana has now reclaimed his position as the greatest quarterback of all time because he won 4 out of 4 of the Super Bowls he appeared in. A perfect Super Bowl record. Regardless of Brady's waning popularity after Super Bowl LII (waning popularity seems a little generous to his skeptics), I think there is a case to be made that Tom Brady is still the GOAT.
What is "Great?"
When I say great, I don't mean best. I mean it in terms of the accolades that are due to him. He deserves every bit of praise he receives as a football player. He was almost not drafted, having gone in the 6th round and being pick 199. He was not expected to do anything where, in the case of Joe Montana, great things were expected of the Notre Dame grad. Brady was a third string quarterback for the Michigan Wolverines. He barely saw any field time in college and was considered unimpressive by the Patriots when they drafted him. But, we know how this story goes, he has led his team to 8 Super Bowls and has been victorious in 5!
Sure, statistically he probably was not as good as Montana, Manning, Favre, Unitas, Marino, Aikman, or a slew of other Hall-of-Fame quarterbacks, but he has something they could never achieve: a fist full of Super Bowl rings. I believe in intangibles and Brady is one of the key components to the Patriots' success over the past 2 decades (yes it has nearly been 2 decades since he took the helm!).
A Great Team?
It can be argued that Montana did not have the team that Brady has had. Indeed, when Brady is injured, his team remains a winning team when many other teams would crumble without their starting quarterback. This does speak to teams like the Indianapolis Colts who become crippled when they loose their starting quarterback. It proves that they drafted a truly gifted athlete that holds the team together under all circumstances, until they are gone. But we're talking Montana, here, and the San Francisco 49ers of his era.
Without going into too much detail, let's look at what the 9ers had at their disposal. First, they had Hall-of-Fame legendary coach, Bill Walsh, who commanded the 9ers to their victories. This is most certainly comparable to future HOF coach Bill Belichick. On top of that, they had 5 HOF players on their team: Montana, Rice, Lott, Dean, and Steve Young. I will get back to Young here in a minute. Now, it is yet to be seen how many HOFs will graduate from New England, but it won't be light. Belichick, Brady, and Gronkowski will easily make the cut and they will certainly have a few more to add. But Jerry Rice was the Michael Jordan of his position, Ronnie Lott was considered one of the best Corners of all time (arguably the best) and Montana (as we are discussing now) is arguably the best QB of all time. Having 3 best evers on your team, not to mention their coach, is nothing to poo poo at.
Now, revisiting the absence of Tom Brady's affect on his team. Yes, his team was still a winning team, but look at the 49ers without Joe Montana. This guy named Steve Young stepped in after Monatan was traded to the chiefs and cleaned house. No, he didn't claim 4 Super Bowls the way Montana did, but he walked away with 1 Super Bowl victory (more than most QBs). One could argue that Montana was not essential for their 4 Super Bowl victories under his leadership and Steve Young might be the best evidence for that. The 49ers remained a winning team without Joe Montana.
With all of the great 49ers that played in this era, I barely scratched the surface with the great non-HOFs that played for this legendary team and contributed to their success. They were most certainly a team to be reckoned with and would give a Bradyless Patriots team a run for their money, even without their star QB, Steve - err - Joe Montana.
Is Brady a cheater?
One of the strongest accusations against Brady's greatness is that he and the Patriots are cheaters. Is Brady a cheater? My answer: I don't know. It depends on if there is any conclusive evidence that he ever cheated. Thus far, nothing conclusive has been uncovered. But, he did sit out for a good chunk of the 2016 season because of unverifiable accusations that were leveled against him. To me, that should be enough to shush his haters, but a hater wouldn't be a hater if that were the case.
What about the controversial incomplete pass against the Steelers this past season? Had the catch been ruled complete, Pittsburgh would have enjoyed home field advantage throughout the playoffs and possibly have altered their fate. What is more juicy is that the Eagles' Zach Ertz's game winning catch against the Patriots was, indeed, ruled a catch, but was arguably the same circumstance as Pittsburgh's no-catch in the regular season.
To put this controversy to rest, which is wishful thinking, both calls were correct. Jesse James, the receiver for the Steelers, never established control of the football before it hit the ground. Period. He was jostling the ball as he fell and contact with the ground was the only reason that the ball became secured in his hands. In fact, had it not been for instant replay, the pass would have been ruled a catch because no human could have determined what had truly happened without the help of technology.
Zach Ertz caught the ball. Plain and simple. He caught the ball, turned around, with clear control over the football, extended it over the goal line and scored a touchdown. After the ball crossed the line, it hit the ground and popped out of his hands. The catch was already a catch and would have been called a catch, with a fumble, had it been anywhere else on the field. Instant replay confirmed that Ertz had control of the ball and that there was no need to overturn the original ruling.
Over all, people's frustration with calls being ruled in favor of the Pats is because of New England's remarkable discipline on the field. A disciplined team leads to fewer penalties. Don't tell me that you think Belichick is lax on discipline on the practice field!
A Living Dynasty
This leads me to my final point. The final argument against Brady's greatness is that their are other teams that have as many Super Bowl victories; rather, more Super Bowl victories than he and the Patriots have. I don't know how many each team has, but I hear this the most from Steelers fans. The Steelers have won 6 Super Bowls. That's fantastic, but why do we never take into account that this is since their founding and since the Super Bowl has been instituted as the championship game of the NFL? Tom Brady has been to 8 Super Bowls and has won 5 and he has achieved this since 2001. The Patriots have, total, 9 Super Bowl appearances and have only been victorious under Brady.
Brady has lost 3 Super Bowls. So what? This is not to knock Montana, but he only went to 4 Super Bowls; half as many as Tom Brady. Was Montana a better quarterback? Probably. But was he the GOAT? If 8 and 5 are still greater than 4...
www.williamhseng.com
No comments:
Post a Comment