The phrase the 90's indicates a decade of time and not a year given on a birth certificate so maybe you're not good. Elway was an old man when he won those Super Bowls. He needed great talent to win those. If you saw him play in the 80's "Chief", you would know what a shell of a player he was in those final two years. If Elway had today's favorable rules and today's medicine then who knows how many more Super Bowls he'd have. When you try to compare eras and completely ignore huge differences in rules and advances in medicine then you're just not being particularly realistic.
Feel free to list the HOFers that Brady had as offensive targets and let me know how they compare with those that the other QB's you consider to be the greatest but refuse to elaborate on, played with. Yeah I'm pretty sure I'm still good since the phrase "the 90s" wasn't that difficult to understand. My saying that my birth certificate doesnt give the 90s as a birth year could be inferred by one as meaning it doesn't give a year in the 90s as the birth year since I presume that's what you were implying chief. Anyway, back to the topic- I never questioned Elway's talent chief. From what I personally saw in the 80s, Elway and Montana were up there w/the other greats in the 80s. One had a team with better talent of course. Elway was 37 and 38 when he won his final two SB's. Brady is 37. I'm sure if Elway had the talent he had in the late 90s back in the mid-late 80s then things might have been different. Either way he had a team that an argument could be made had equal talent but definitely not worse, in terms of offensive targets to Brady's 3 SB winning teams prior to this year. Especially in terms of the running game. In terms of receivers, both had to deal with similar levels of mediocrity. At least this year Brady finally had a healthy Gronk in a SB. Your initial argument was that they both played with similar talent and Gronk was the best either of them played with. The similar talent aspect was only true for Elway's 3 SB losses as mentioned. Elway had better offensive weapons in the 2 SB wins. Gronk being the best offensive target either of them had to work with was also disproven. Now we're onto "favourable rules and medicine"? Tough luck for Elway that he played in the 80s with "unfavourable rules", he is still one of the greatest of all time and the stats and eye test can't lie about that but the stats and championships for Brady also don't lie as to who is the best when all is considered. It's Brady and Montana as 1a and 1b if one wants to keep things close.
He's certainly in the argument. Forget him for a minute though, the Patriots scheme is the greatest of all time. Their offense is so creative. That is the big difference to me. The Patriots have no problem designing plays that get first downs. They need 7 yards, looky there, they run a play that has a WR wide open at 8 yards down field. It's just crazy to me. That scheme is incredibly well mapped out and Brady executes it perfectly. Biggest difference between Seahawks and Patriots was the Seahawks had to "make a play" to move the ball down field while the Patriots just run the machine.
Honestly, I think its a silly debate. Marino, Elway, Favre, Unitas, Brady, Mannings, even Brees, they are all great. I would easily take Rogers over all of them, I've never seen a better runner who is so damn accurate. Everybody is going to have their preference but that's all it is. They are all "the Great Ones" and all I know is that the Oilers/Texans have never had one. How bad is your GM that you have Marino and never win a Super Bowl? At least Houston has an excuse of never having on of "the Great Ones" and no, Moon and Pastorini aren't in that category. I loved that Pete Carroll looked like he wanted to cry at the end of the game. He did the same thing in the 2005 UT game. Gave the ball to Lendale White instead of Reggie Bush and the UT D stopped them on fourth down.
Doesn't seem to be coincidence that long term successful QBs are involved with an innovative scheme. Montana with Walsh, Brady with Belicheck. The real reason for the success of the Patriots is the ability to put a team together with bits and pieces. They get guys in the 4th and 5th rounds or undrafted guys and they make them cogs in the machine. Nate Solder is the only 1st round draft pick on the entire offense. That is pretty mind-blowing. Also not a coincidence that in both cases, the QB running the system was not as integral to the team's regular season success. Grbac, Young were still successful running Walsh schemes. Matt Cassel went 11-5 the year Brady was injured. Of course it is unlikely a less talented QB like a Cassel would have been able to win a Super Bowl, but it is interesting to note that sample size season when the Patriots were still a good offense with a very mediocre QB under center.
With all due respect, the scheme and offensive system can get you only so far. If you don't have a very good QB then all you end up is an 11-5 Matt Cassel. If you can't appreciate Brady's stats at least appreciate the fact that he was able to get the points his team needed despite his own mistakes unlike a certain Nationwide QB that folds like origami when the pressure is on.
I was surprised that after the 3rd superbowl he was not already in the conversation, but I think he's deserving. I think Montana is better. But Brady is right there.
I always find it funny how often people use the same argument when trying to crown a GOAT that Tebow fans and Vince Young fans used to validate them as QB's. When you try to pull the "winz" card in a team sport, you've lost the argument before it really began.
