HOF: Tom Brady

[vtbub]

Has he earned his trip to Canton, and if not, what else does he have to prove besides longevity?

[Crapshoot]

Tom Brady is the Derek Jeter of the NFL. And its time Patriots fans realize that.

[QuikSand]

Just has to hang around for another six or eight non-embarassing years and he's in.

[Castlerock]

No. Not yet anyway.

[Desnudo]

Longevity. If he keeps putting up the stats he has so far for another 5-10 years, he'd be a lock. Another Super Bowl win would also make it very likely.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Tom Brady is the Derek Jeter of the NFL. And its time Patriots fans realize that.

How can you realize something that you have no idea what it means?

[Samdari]

Needs to do it for more than 3 years.

Much like Vick, we are having discussions about these QBs WAY, WAY too early.

Brady looks like he is headed to the HoF, but not knowing what the other 70-80% of his career looks like, its really not a good question.

[Maple Leafs]

Wouldn't three Super Bowl wins by a starting QB pretty much mean automatic induction?

[vtbub]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Wouldn't three Super Bowl wins by a starting QB pretty much mean automatic induction?

We have a winner.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

How can you realize something that you have no idea what it means?

I take it to mean two things: 1. A proven winner who consistently comes through in the clutch in the biggest games and 2. A very nice guy whom people resent for no explainable reason.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Wouldn't three Super Bowl wins by a starting QB pretty much mean automatic induction?

Even two, with "clutch" MVP performances in each, is a pretty likely ticket.

Again -- no, we don't know what might unfold, he might quit to go tour the earth the Rickey Williams next week, who knows? But given the weight that so many people assign to championships when debating QBs (right or wrong), a guy who has already won it twice and is presiding over a team that just ran up the longest NFL winnning streak ever (right?) ... that guy just has to avoid blowing it. He's basically already in.

[Yossarian]

He's had more success than Warner so its not a like for like comparison, but remember how many folk were ready to just book warner a suite at Canton when the rams are on top?

Brady's playing as good as any qb just now (I almost said "that isnt called manning" but (i didnt see game) I heard he choked at the weekend) but give him another five years THEN we'll have this discussion.

[Yossarian]

mind you as qb says (post wasnt there when i started typing). he's been the captain on a very successfull ship...

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Again -- no, we don't know what might unfold, he might quit to go tour the earth the Rickey Williams next week, who knows? But given the weight that so many people assign to championships when debating QBs (right or wrong), a guy who has already won it twice and is presiding over a team that just ran up the longest NFL winnning streak ever (right?) ... that guy just has to avoid blowing it. He's basically already in.

I want to agree, but every time this sort of discussion comes up I think of Kurt Warner. Two years ago, he was as sure a thing as there could be. He still has a SB ring and one (two?) MVPs -- does he get in despite the way his career went off the tracks?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I want to agree, but every time this sort of discussion comes up I think of Kurt Warner. Two years ago, he was as sure a thing as there could be. He still has a SB ring and one (two?) MVPs -- does he get in despite the way his career went off the tracks?

No, never.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Yossarian

He's had more success than Warner so its not a like for like comparison, but remember how many folk were ready to just book warner a suite at Canton when the rams are on top?

Brady's playing as good as any qb just now (I almost said "that isnt called manning" but (i didnt see game) I heard he choked at the weekend) but give him another five years THEN we'll have this discussion.

Yes, but Brady doesn't have a lunatic wife and think that God is telling him to play football. And he didn't have to play for Mike Martz. Much better chance of career longevity.

[vtbub]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I want to agree, but every time this sort of discussion comes up I think of Kurt Warner. Two years ago, he was as sure a thing as there could be. He still has a SB ring and one (two?) MVPs -- does he get in despite the way his career went off the tracks?

Right now, no. And, if Brady were to fall off the wagon without that 3rd ring, no. Warner executed Martz' gameplan very well for two years. He needs to win in the post-season with whomever he plays with in the future.

[cthomer5000]

If he blows out his shoulder in the Super Bowl and has to retire: no
If he turns to absolute shit for 6 more seasons: no

QuikSand nailed it. On his current course he's obviously heading that way, but it's just too early to tell.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I want to agree, but every time this sort of discussion comes up I think of Kurt Warner. Two years ago, he was as sure a thing as there could be. He still has a SB ring and one (two?) MVPs -- does he get in despite the way his career went off the tracks?

Right...but Warner is defined by gaudy stats. He did get one ring, true. And that certainly helps his argument. But even two years ago, I think the conventional wisdom was that Warner needed to keep it up a while longer to make a strong case. (Plus, the fact that he played in a supposedly super-innovative offensive system, which has continued to do very well with another no-name QB after his departure, while Warner himself has struggled elsehere, certainly dims his chances)

Two rings (and two SB MVPs) won't go away, no matter what. Brady is established as a winner, pure and simple. That obviously goes a long way (again, rightly or wrongly) in defining people's thinking on this. The other guys who fall into the list that he has already joined (QB/leader of modern-era great teams) all got swept into the HOF easily -- Starr, Bradshaw, Montana, Aikman. None of those guys except Montana were about gaudy stats, they got in as winners. (Heck, even Bob Griese got in, and as much as I like him, he isn't half the QB of most HOF guys)

So, I stick with my initial statement. He just needs to stick around several more years, not embarass himself, and he is basically a lock. A third ring and it's even clearer.

[Franklinnoble]

I think 2 Super Bowl wins gets you in.

So, why isn't Art Monk in the HOF?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

So, why isn't Art Monk in the HOF?

Because he's not good enough, and never was?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

How can you realize something that you have no idea what it means?

A very good player who is hyped up to greatness because of an all around great team around him. Ridiculously overrated. if the SB arguement holds, Trent Dilfer should go into the HOF over Dan Marino...

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Yes, but Brady doesn't have a lunatic wife and think that God is telling him to play football.

Christian-bashing..........very original.

[cthomer5000]

Don't make me get shoot Monk down again. We've been over this before.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

Don't make me get shoot Monk down again. We've been over this before.

And you've been wrong every time.

But, we won't make you embarass yourself again.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Christian-bashing..........very original.

How is that Christian bashing? If he said God had told him to go to Africa and feed starving children, I'd say good luck. If someone uses God to explain material success, I say you're an idiot. Troll along now.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

If the SB arguement holds, Trent Dilfer should go into the HOF over Dan Marino...

Okay, okay, we get it. You can find an exception to the general rule that "winning championships is important in assessing a QB's greatness."

Does that invalidate the "rule" being argued? Of course not.

Whether it's overemphasized is debatable (and I'm pobabl with you on that question, actually)... but nobody is really arguing that ring=in and noring=out here, or anywhere.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

A very good player who is hyped up to greatness because of an all around great team around him. Ridiculously overrated. if the SB arguement holds, Trent Dilfer should go into the HOF over Dan Marino...

You are completely out of it. Watch some games please.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Okay, okay, we get it. You can find an exception to the general rule that "winning championships is important in assessing a QB's greatness."

Does that invalidate the "rule" being argued? Of course not.

Whether it's overemphasized is debatable (and I'm pobabl with you on that question, actually)... but nobody is really arguing that ring=in and noring=out here, or anywhere.

Fundementally, the team (especially in a sport like football) is the key element in winning or losing- one player does not change that. I dont see how punishing one player for having a shitty team around him (a la Marino) while praising the other one for have a better team around him is in any way an accurate judge of the individual's skill. its not quite Luis Sojo, but its the idea that a Derek Jeter is a better SS than an Alex Rodriguez because he "knows how to win" and so forth.

Actually, I dont think we disagree that much- I just hate things like "he won a crapshoot - ergo, he's great" arguement.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Samdari

And you've been wrong every time.

But, we won't make you embarass yourself again.

Well, the Hall of Fame committee apparently agrees with me, which is ultimately all that matters.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

How is that Christian bashing? If he said God had told him to go to Africa and feed starving children, I'd say good luck. If someone uses God to explain material success, I say you're an idiot. Troll along now.

I'm trolling for calling out a troll? Aye, yi, yi.

If God calls a person to do ANYTHING (that doesn't hurt others) that supports himself and his family, how in the WORLD can you insult him? Having a calling is a great thing.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

You are completely out of it. Watch some games please.

Ooh, good one. I live in Boston- watched plently. He's a very good QB - not a great one.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Actually, I dont think we disagree that much...

I don't either, I'm just calling you on your phony argument. I also agree that championships are generally over-regarded, even when it comes to QBs in football (rather than any position players in baseball).

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I don't either, I'm just calling you on your phony argument. I also agree that championships are generally over-regarded, even when it comes to QBs in football (rather than any position players in baseball).

In this thread, I've seen people repeatedly cite Super Bowl's as a qualification- Im simply taking that to the end of the line. Its not phony, but rather an extension of the arguement to prove a point.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Because he's not good enough, and never was?

I disagree. He was better than several WR's in the hall.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I'm trolling for calling out a troll? Aye, yi, yi.

If God calls a person to do ANYTHING (that doesn't hurt others) that supports himself and his family, how in the WORLD can you insult him? Having a calling is a great thing.

I'm not getting drawn into an argument with you. I apologize for insulting anyone who may have taken my comments about God and Kurt Warner the wrong way.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Ooh, good one. I live in Boston- watched plently. He's a very good QB - not a great one.

Then you aren't watching very carefully. And I'd love to hear your definition of great.

[vtbub]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

In this thread, I've seen people repeatedly cite Super Bowl's as a qualification- Im simply taking that to the end of the line. Its not phony, but rather an extension of the arguement to prove a point.

While SB wins add to the arguement, unless he's playing the Dolphins, this guy does not put himself in the postion to beat himself. He just wins, and wins a lot.

He's the guy you want with the ball with two minutes to go and 80 yards needed to win.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I'm not getting drawn into an argument with you. I apologize for insulting anyone who may have taken my comments about God and Kurt Warner the wrong way.

No sweat, I wasn't planning on having a prolonged argument, as I have a 3 year-old to take care of and a family to provide for, but I felt compelled to stick up for fellow-Christians. Even though Bush got re-elected and many people half-jokingly call America "Jesus-land" now, I have NEVER heard or felt more persecution from non-Christians in my life.

By the way, I don't expect everyone to agree with or be a Christian, I just expect the same respect other sects (gays, minorites, etc...) in our society are expected to recieve.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

In this thread, I've seen people repeatedly cite Super Bowl's as a qualification- Im simply taking that to the end of the line. Its not phony, but rather an extension of the arguement to prove a point.

Well, I frequently advance the Dilfer>Marino argument to rant about how I think SB wins are overemphasized in determining HoF quals for a QB. But, QS has a point in that it is only part of the equation. While Dilfer is a ridiculous example, having won as no better than a journeyman, perhaps Jim McMahon is not. He was one of the better QB's in the league, for a few years anyway, and won a Super Bowl. The fact that he is not in, but Marino, Fouts, Tarkenton and Kelly are shows that there is indeed some balance.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

No sweat, I wasn't planning on having a prolonged argument, as I have a 3 year-old to take care of and a family to provide for, but I felt compelled to stick up for fellow-Christians. Even though Bush got re-elected and many people half-jokingly call America "Jesus-land" now, I have NEVER heard or felt more persecution from non-Christians in my life.

By the way, I don't expect everyone to agree with or be a Christian, I just expect the same respect other sects (gays, minorites, etc...) in our society are expected to recieve.

Roffle. That's hilarious.

[vtbub]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

No sweat, I wasn't planning on having a prolonged argument, as I have a 3 year-old to take care of and a family to provide for, but I felt compelled to stick up for fellow-Christians. Even though Bush got re-elected and many people half-jokingly call America "Jesus-land" now, I have NEVER heard or felt more persecution from non-Christians in my life.

By the way, I don't expect everyone to agree with or be a Christian, I just expect the same respect other sects (gays, minorites, etc...) in our society are expected to recieve.

Yeah, but is Brady a HOF qb?

[QuikSand]

Art Monk was a good player, who played a long time, and due to the nature of his style of play, accumulated a lot of catches. He was an asset to his team, his team was frequently very good, and he served them a long time. he receives, and deservs crceidt for these things.

There was, however, never a time in his career when Art Monk was the best or most feared player at his position. For me, the notion of "established brillaince" is an essential factor in HOF voting, and I think Monk simply fails that test. Durable, long-lasting, solid play is not as valuable, in my eyes, and genrally not HOF-worthy.

I think it's sort of a shame that the great Redskin teams are sort of under-represented in the HOF. Maybe Russ Grimm someday helps that, I don't know. But that's no argument for putting Monk in, either.

I liked Art Monk, I'd want him on my team, and I recognize he played a role in winning championships.

I'd still vote against him. And I think he's gotten what he deserved -- general recognition as an excellent player, inclusion on the list of HOF finalists, but ultimately a seat on the outside looking in. If I had a vote, Tim Brown would probably get a seat right next to him. They could both clap as Sterling Sharpe gives his speech.

[Kodos]

I agree with the "Brady is not in yet but only needs to not mess up to make it" camp.

[Warhammer]

How in the world can you say Monk and Brown are out and Sterling Sharpe is in?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

How in the world can you say Monk and Brown are out and Sterling Sharpe is in?

Talent wise it's no brainer. Sharpe was head and shoulders an elite guy.

Longevity is the problem. It's the classic case of the grinders vs the comet flashing across the sky.

[JAG]

I think greatness over a long period of time is really the defining characteristic of a Hall of Famer. Terrell Davis had four amazing years running the football. Warner had three of the best statistical years for a QB ever. As far as I'm concerned, neither did enough for a long enough period of time to qualify for the HOF. We may look back at Brady and say, "Those were two amazing Super Bowls he won, but he didn't do anything else of worth at all." or say "He was the second coming of Joe Montana." But as I've now helped beat into the ground, we won't know for a number of years.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Art Monk was a good player, who played a long time, and due to the nature of his style of play, accumulated a lot of catches. He was an asset to his team, his team was frequently very good, and he served them a long time. he receives, and deservs crceidt for these things.

There was, however, never a time in his career when Art Monk was the best or most feared player at his position. For me, the notion of "established brillaince" is an essential factor in HOF voting, and I think Monk simply fails that test. Durable, long-lasting, solid play is not as valuable, in my eyes, and genrally not HOF-worthy.

I think it's sort of a shame that the great Redskin teams are sort of under-represented in the HOF. Maybe Russ Grimm someday helps that, I don't know. But that's no argument for putting Monk in, either.

I liked Art Monk, I'd want him on my team, and I recognize he played a role in winning championships.

I'd still vote against him. And I think he's gotten what he deserved -- general recognition as an excellent player, inclusion on the list of HOF finalists, but ultimately a seat on the outside looking in. If I had a vote, Tim Brown would probably get a seat right next to him. They could both clap as Sterling Sharpe gives his speech.

Ok... tell me that Steve Largent was any more "brilliant" or "feared" than Art Monk at any time in his career. Durable. Reliable. Good hands. Decent speed. But at 5'11", he wasn't scaring anyone. He just racked up a shitload of numbers playing on a very bad Seahawks team.

Monk racked up a shitload of numbers playing on a very good Redskins team. Durable. Reliable. Good hands. Decent speed. More fearsome than Largent, I'd say.

But, whatever. People like you and Peter King piss me off when it comes to this discussion.

[Warhammer]

Hell, when I watched the mid 80s 'Skins it was always, watch out for Monk or he will bite you! Heck, they're talking about putting Irvin in, Monk was MUCH MUCH better than Irvin.

Since we're on the subject of great WRs, does Isaac Bruce get in to the HoF?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Ok... tell me that Steve Largent was any more "brilliant" or "feared" than Art Monk at any time in his career. Durable. Reliable. Good hands. Decent speed. But at 5'11", he wasn't scaring anyone. He just racked up a shitload of numbers playing on a very bad Seahawks team.

Monk racked up a shitload of numbers playing on a very good Redskins team. Durable. Reliable. Good hands. Decent speed. More fearsome than Largent, I'd say.

But, whatever. People like you and Peter King piss me off when it comes to this discussion.

Yeah but Largent is a white boy.