The 2016 NFL Playoffs Thread

I basically repeated what you said lol

Might this also be true of Montana, though (since we're comparing the two)? He played for Bill Walsh for eight seasons, then George Seifert (who was an internal hire) for two. Both are Super Bowl-winning coaches. In Kansas City, Montana played two productive seasons for Marty Schottenheimer, who tended to notch a lot of wins but fall short in the post-season.

I'm not really taking one side or the other. I think Montana would have done well wherever we played, but I think he was also lucky in that he played for competent, consistent football programs (and that includes Notre Dame, where he won a national championship). If the Niners had traded Montana to, say, the Atlanta Falcons (who were 3-13 that year), he might have had far more pedestrian numbers.

Conversely, I think if New England traded Tom Brady to a stable contender like Green Bay or Pittsburgh, he'd do just fine. It's because both guys were/are smart, intuitive players. Like Montana, Brady has a great feel for the game and he rarely gets rattled. Some of that can be coached, certainly, but I have to believe that a lot of it is just natural talent.

It absolutely might be true of Montana, yeah. I wasn't actually trying to compare them, I was just replying to someone who was. I already put Montana towards the bottom of the tier among the other great QBs, anyway, mainly because I care less about postseason success for these purposes.

I do think switching teams and still performing at a high level is a mark in his favor, though.

I think post season success is something you have to look at though. It's a result of winning, and winning often means less piling up the numbers during garbage time or while trying to catch up.

Yeah, I think the post-season is a good measure because playoff teams have to be able to win against other high-caliber teams. The latter half of the regular season is also the period when good teams really figure out who they are and what they do well, so (injuries notwithstanding) you'd expect playoff teams to be pretty lean and focused.

I would definitely agree. Playoff success should be a big part of the discussion. It shouldn't be the only part of the discussion, but it should factor in. You take a guy like Peyton Manning, who has had marginal playoff success (certainly not the kind of playoff success that guys like Brady, Montana, and the rest have had), but always challenges the record books each and every regular season. Obviously he's in the discussion along with the likes of the other greats, but the playoff record is something of a mark against him, but he makes up for it in other areas.

But then you get guys who don't have the postseason success (off the top of my head, I'm thinking guys like Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, etc,), not because of their own lack of greatness but because of the teams that they were on. While I won't shed much of a tear for Marino because I despise the Dolphins, but it is a shame to see an all-time great QB left to flounder on a team that can't consistently challenge for a championship. You also look at a guy like Jim Kelly, who doesn't have a championship, but was clearly a great QB. I guess, long story short, the playoffs absolutely should be a factor in the discussion, a large factor at that, but it shouldn't be the only factor.

I remember when Marino made it to the Super Bowl in his second year. Nobody ever would have thought that it would be his last.

Yeah, Marino's pretty much Exhibit A on this question. He never wins one, but Joe Flacco does. Trent Dilfer does. Yet we all know neither of them belong in this conversation.

Obviously, all games should be factored in. The main issue is whether or not there's any reason to believe playoff games offer us some kind of special window into a player's ability that all the other games don't. Heck, the outcome of one game doesn't even always tell you which team is better, let alone how responsible a single player is for victory or defeat.

I don't think the playoffs add any insight into a player's physical ability, but mentally, it may. Choking is a real thing, and it also shows consistency if you can excel both in the regular season and in the playoffs. And as was already mentioned, that's when the competition is the best of the best.

Joe Flacco does. He had the best postseason of any QB ever!

I think post-season success should count for something, but definitely not everything. Many times I've heard people say someone's better just because they "have a ring" but I personally think that's a silly thing to say.

All of you have already said Marino, which I agree. No disrespect to these players, but there's no way you can say that QBs like Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson are better than him just because they happened to be on a Super Bowl-winning team.

Even with sports like basketball, are you gonna say Charles Barkley or Steve Nash are inferior to many of the mediocre players that were just lucky enough to be on a championship-winning team?

That's when I think reading into "rings" goes a little too far.

Which brings me to Manning... I think that a few years after he retires, he will be seen as one of the GOATs. A lot of people act like he's never won a Super Bowl when he has (making 3 appearances with 2 different teams ain't too shabby either) and you really can't ignore his regular season accomplishments. And being able to change teams and still be an MVP winning QB means that it's really him that was great, and not just a system.

People saying that Brady is a system QB because Cassel had moderate success are forgetting that we had literally the best offensive season in NFL history up to that point the season prior. Tim Tebow could have won 10 games with that team, but very few guys could have won 18.

Look at how Brady's weapons played before arriving in New England. Welker was a nobody before he got here. Moss was brought back from being left for dead in Oakland. We churn out 1000 yard rushers from no-names every year (hell BenJarvis Green-****ing-Ellis ran for a 1000 yards in New England). We rotate the pieces around Brady all the time and he never slows down. Is Brady a system QB? Yes, as in a QB you can BUILD a system around, rotate the cast and crew around, and still succeed at an elite level.

__________________
my youtube channel (mostly about filmmaking and photography not movie reviews)

my letterboxd (movie reviews)

I don't think anyone is saying that Brady is a system QB and that's the only reason for his success. My point was, and I suspect the point of others making the claim (not to speak for them, of course) that, given the idea that the Patriots could be without one or the other (Brady or Belichick), the future would be more bleak without Belichick. When Brady retires, assuming Belichick doesn't walk out the door with him, the Pats will be in fine shape. If Belichick walked out the door tomorrow, they would probably not suffer immediately, as the assistants could carry on with the current plan and keep the ship afloat for a while, but the franchise would gradually begin to come back to the pack, just because of the knowledge and coaching ability that Belichick would be taking with him out the door. That's not to say that they wouldn't still be good, as they'd still have one of the top 3 QBs in the league leading the team, but the absence of Belichick would mean that the pieces they put around Brady would probably not be as good the next time that it comes to reload.

That's fair and probably very true, but I don't think either of them are planning on going anywhere for at least a couple more seasons, if not longer, if you believe what Brady says about playing well into his 40s.

I don't think either are going anywhere anytime soon either. More of a hypothetical, which is inherently more valuable to the franchise. They're both incredibly valuable to the Pats, but I think Belichick is just a bit more valuable.

I could see Brady playing well into his 40s. I can easily see it. It's one of those things that keeps Jets fans up at night.

Impossible to tell, especially since we have no idea of who the replacements would be. A coaches impact can be hard to calculate, and how much do the coordinators contribute? We know Brady's value because we can see it, and it wasn't until he arrived that Belichick became great. A great owner is important as well, which they have.

While I am and we are pondering the Q. Here is Top 15 QBS Retired or Active.

1 Joe Montana.
2 Bart Starr.
3 Johnny Unitus.
4 John Elway.
5 Roger Staubach.
6 Brett Farve.
7 Peyton Manning.
8 Tom Brady.
9 Terry Bradshaw.
10 Warren Moon.
11 Jim Kelly.
12 Steve Young.
13 Drew Brees
14 Aaron Rodgers.
15 Ben Rothlisberger.

Bart Starr second? I rarely see his name come up. Pretty surprising that you have him above alot of those guys, especially Unitas who i thought was pretty much the consensus best QB of that era,

Also are Brees and Roethilsberger thought of higher than Dan Marino?

I'll drop mine down since I'm here

1- Tom Brady
2- Joe Montana
3- Peyton Manning
4- Dan Marino
5- John Elway
6- Brett Favre
7- Johnny Unitas
8- Otto Graham
9- Roger Staubach
10- Steve Young

How would we tell the difference between "choking" and just having a bad game?