Part Two: The Facts Prove That Tom Brady Is Not a Great Quarterback

This article is a follow-up to a previous article on the topic of whether Patriots quarterback Tom Brady is great.


You see, I have used Tom Brady as an example for a larger problem that I have—people will fixate too heavily on statistics in order to ascertain whether a football player is great. 

I emphasize the words "football player," because greatness in football is different than baseball, basketball, or hockey.

I have this problem because the Hall of Fame has consistently denied the induction of Raiders great Ken Stabler, for reasons that clearly contradict reality. 

Stabler may have thrown too many picks, but regardless of that, Stabler would lead the Raiders to victory.  The voters however would like for people to think that the Raiders won because of other factors, but anyone that watched the games would say that Stabler was great.

Football statistics in truth are a poor metric to determine the greatness of a player, because in reality most football stats are mathematically dependent. Thus it reeks of idiocy to evaluate an individual from mathematically dependent stats. Meanwhile, other stats are far too subjective to provide any empirical value.

For instance, quarterback Kurt Warner of the Arizona Cardinals is statistically listed as deserving, "little credit" for the Cardinals win over the Green Bay Packers in the wild card game last postseason. 

Warner threw five touchdowns, no picks, and around 370 yards.  But because Karlos Dansby returned a fumble for a touchdown when the game was tied, Warner is listed as deserving "little credit."

I'm still laughing about it.

At the same time, quarterback Kerry Collins has nearly the same number of fourth quarter comebacks or game winning drives as Tom Brady: 49 for Collins and 50 for Brady.  Yet, which one is debated among the all-time great...

About the Author