Tom Terrific...A Shoe-in Hall of Famer from the moment he retires...The Standard Bearer....The Best Ever....These are just a few of the over-the-top accolades the sports intelligencia have showered upon the quarterback for the New England Patriots in non-stop fashion over the last six years.
Make no mistake: the guy is good. His win-loss record, his play-off numbers, and his Super Bowl rings are awfully hard to argue with. But the best ever? Not so fast. Yes, he has thrived within the Belichek system, the premier offensive system of the last decade, much like Number 16 of the 49'ers thrived under Bill Walsh's system a few decades ago. Both Brady and Montana are, to a great extent, beneficiaries of systems that played to their strengths. They were asked to execute very structured, short-passing offenses during an era when the defenses they faced were light years away from knowing how to counter them. They both deserve credit for executing these coach driven systems extremely well. But to put such "system quarterbacks" in the hall of fame or in the greatest ever category seems unfair and ill-advised to me.
Take a look at what happened in both New England and San Francisco when these marquis quarterbacks went down to injury or, in Montana's case, retirement. The teams didn't miss a beat! Steve Young jumped right in and won Super Bowls too. Matt Cassel led the Pats to an 11-5 record, the first and only 11-5 team not to make the playoffs. The system was what worked. The quarterback merely managed it. And thus, when Brady recovered and media darling Matt Cassel was dealt to Kansas City to be the starter for a paltry 64 million dollars, and while Cassel had one decent year playing in the worst division in football, it wasn't very long before he was recognized as the bottom of the barrel signal caller he truly is. If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Montana's fate with Kansas City toward the end of his career was strikingly similar. Why doesn't anyone ever ask how Terrific Tom would be as the Browns's quarterback or taking snaps for the Raiders?
Tom Brady began running the Belichek offense when it was fairly balanced between the run and the 3- 5 step drop pass attack. After his knee injury a few seasons ago, the system was amended to 1 and 2 step drops. And how often in any game do we see Brady throw to anyone other than his primary receiver? When the system is working and Brady goes off for 350 to 400 yards, he is throwing the ball in less than 1.5 seconds to Welker on a slant or Branch on a hitch, both of whom are less than 5-7 yards down field. Yes, Brady does this terrifically, maybe even better than anyone. But does doing that and the numbers and QBR that come with it make him a hall of fame candidate? The greatest ever? I think not.
True greatness for me has always been measured by how one performs when things don't work according to plan. What does the QB do when the primary receiver is covered? How quickly does he get to his secondary and tertiary reads? How well can he improvise, scramble, make something out of nothing? Tom Brady has the mobility of Bernie Kosar and the improvisational wizardry of Joe Kapp. When the Jets, Steelers, Ravens, or Bills have the game plan to counter Belichek's, Brady becomes a very average Tom. He gets flustered; he throws multiple picks; and he rarely can even find, much less complete a pass to a secondary receiver. From there you'll find him pouting on the sidelines or even going off on his offensive coordinator. Greatest ever? C'mon man!
Again, Brady deserves the credit he gets for doing what he does very well. But he is the consummate system quarterback. If you want to talk about greatness, give me John Elway, Brett Farve, Drew Brees, or Aaron Rogers, guys who were/are constantly finding their primary receivers locked up, their secondary receivers knocked down, and are still able to make something happen with their arms and, at times, with their legs.
Why is it that with quarterbacks we seem to want to judge their greatness by how many rings they acquire, while with players at other positions we're much more apt to take into account what they do at their position? When people talk about the greatest running backs of all time, they talk about Barry Sanders and Earl Campbell, guys who never saw a Super Bowl except on TV and who spent their entire careers sounding like Jim Mora: "Playoffs? You talkin' about the playoffs? Don't talk to me about playoffs." Sanders and Campbell played on crappy teams who never won anything. They had horrible offensive lines who couldn't block a cheerleader. But they both managed to gain yard after yard on chronically busted plays. Their greatness was in evidence especially when things didn't go the way they were supposed to. When the going got tough, they became more amazing, not less so. That is always what true greatness does.
Give Brady his due. He's a winner on a winning team with the most winning system and the winningest coach of the last decade. He's got three rings already and may get another one soon - unless of course he gets Tebowed. He racks up the yardage and cranks out the touchdowns at a feverish pace. But when the going gets tough and the system fails, he's not only average; he's well below average. When the guy he's planning to throw to is covered, he's no Drew Brees, no Aaron Rogers, no Eli Manning, no Peyton Manning, no Matthew Stafford, no Alex Smith, no Cam Newton, no Matt Hasselback, no Sam Bradford, no Joe Flacco, no Matt Ryan, and certainly no greatest ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment