Where does Brady rank?

Because Jack Reacher needs something to help him pass the time at work this week, let's reignite this debate. Keeping it to modern-era QBs (post-merger), I say Brady is, AT WORST, No. 2 all time.

What say you?

 

It's an interesting discussion. I say you put him below Montana and above everyone else.
The interesting points though are this: Brady could have won his SIXTH ring tonight if the Pats defense had held up in those two Giant games. He put them in position to win both those games. How much do you put on his for the 4-2 record?
That being said, hard to knock Brady down a peg or two because their reputation is trash right now. This ring helps them a little bit but their accomplishments will always be questioned a little.
So, yeah, Montana first, Brady second.

 

And Brady could be completely without rings just as easily. He was outstanding tonight, but his team was handed the victory by a lousy coaching decision.

 

He stumbled into four rings. OVERRATED!

 

I have always thought the whole "Montana rings" argument was overrated and always loss some luster when you consider the 49ers won another ring with essentially the same team and a different QB the next year after they traded him.

 

Young had been the starter for a while after Montana's back injury and had lost the two previous NFC title games. Young was no Montana.

 

Wait, greatest upset ever is that OOP didn't give us his list of greatest QBs ever..

1. Terry Bradshaw
2. Big Ben
3. Bubby Brister
4. Dan Marino, cause, you know, he's from Pittsburgh
5. Neil O'Donnell
6. Joe Namath, hell Beaver Falls might as well be Pittsburgh
7. Joe Montana, the Mon Valley ain't so far away
8. Johnny Unitas, the pride of St. Justin's in Pittsburgh
9. Scott Zolak, see No. 7
10. Bruce Gradkowski, you ever hear him talk? He is 100 percent yinzer!!

 

Nobody said that. I certainly didn't.

What I was saying to schiez is you can't talk about how close Brady and the Patriots came to winning more championships without considering how close they were to losing each time as well. The appropriate perspective is to evaluate the team and the quarterback based on what they did, not what could have happened.

 

So If Lynch runs it in that end that effects Brady's legacy?

You guys are better than that.

 

I don't think so. I don't think anybody posted that, JC. I'm saying that schiez's point regarding how close Brady is to having two more rings doesn't hold up because the Patriots have also come very close to losing the Super Bowls they won and that is especially true of tonight's game.

 

I think it's appropriate if we're talking about Brady vs. Montana as Brady put the team in position to win Super Bowls SIX TIMES and came away with four rings. He completed 74 percent of his passes tonight and rallied them from a 10-point deficit in the fourth quarter against one of the best defenses in recent memory.
Yes, the Pats could have easily lost all four of them but BRADY, as in the person we're talking about here, put them in position to win six times.
I still think Montana is the greatest QB of all-time but I can't see how you put anyone above Brady in that Number 2 slot. I really don't.

 

And I also think that point needs to be brought up because, most likely, Peyton has to be in this conversation somewhere in terms of the top 10 at least right? And what knocks Manning down is his performance in big games. Brady is virtually untouched in big game performances. He's got virtually every playoff/SB passing record. He did it without a true No. 1 running back for most of his run and with serviceable but definitely not HOF WRs as well as good, but not great, defenses.
Just saying. Love him or hate him. He's earned his spot in history.