This is why Rodgers is way better than Brady.

I'm not arguing about whether or not Brady did it. I thought I made that clear, but that's not what I'm arguing at all. Nor am I arguing morality.

It's just a fact that one thing is against the rules, and the other is not. I think it's as simple as that.

I understand that this may not be worth continuing and that we may not agree... And this it's frankly pointless anyway since we aren't even discussing whether or not the Patriots are even guilty of anything...

But.. just to attempt to make my point clearly, which I think I may not have, to me there is indeed a big difference between the two scenarios. In one case a player freely admits that he gets the ball the way he likes it and turns it over to the officials to inspect. If the officials don't do their job properly, then the officials are at fault and not the player. That's not cheating. Perhaps only on a technicality, but either way, the player didn't violate any rules as he turned over the equipment to the official as was required by the rule book. It's out of his hands how they handle it after that.

In the other scenario the official inspects the ball and then the team has an equipment manager intentionally wait until after the balls have passed the inspection, hide away from the on field officials, and use equipment that it is illegal for him to have on the field to secretly alter the ball so that it is not in compliance with the rules. That's definitely a very different scenario from the Rodgers scenario. That difference in timing makes all the difference. The  first situation is still presenting the ball for the inspection, the other is the essence of tampering. 

None of this really matters as the amount the ball is inflated probably makes a nominal difference, and frankly I think quarterbacks should be able inflate or deflate to whatever specs they want, and I'm not saying Brady did any of this anyway...

But I'd say it's just a plain fact that it's not the same thing, and that Rodgers' approach is not against any rules. Even if just by technicality, he is in compliance.

Not to beat a dead horse (conversation) but to help me understand your point clearly, you are seeing it's not really cheating if the refs don't catch it?

So is it not really stealing if the employees don't do their jobs and catch you?

Not really speeding if the cops don't do their job and catch you?

Are you not breaking the time honored rule of "no outside food or drink" if the movie theater ticker-taker doesn't notice your pockets are bulging?

Because if so, I think I might be able to sleep a little easier now.

Tom Brady is a great QB in spite of cheating -- if he even did cheat. Not my #1, but he's still top ten worthy.

I just simply refuse to use the total amount of championships won by a player to judge who's better. It works in a sport like basketball, but not in a sport such as football. Tom Brady has six Super Bowl rings because he was helped by his team's defense (like in this recent Super Bowl, because he has receivers who made clutch catches (like that one juggling catch Edleman made against the Falcons), and because there was always a great game plan to back him up. And that's not an attempt to discredit Brady and all of his accomplishments. In football having a great QB can only get you so far, and it is ludicrous to say Tom Brady is the primary reason for why the Patriots have been as good as they have been for these last twenty years.

I think there's a legit argument to be made for why Aaron Rodgers is better than Tom Brady for the simple fact that he is the only reason the Packers were any good/relevant since Brett Favre left. The Packers, before this season, just couldn't win without him. Now they have a much better defense and they're probably going to win the Super Bowl because of it.

You see now, friend, that's where you're wrong. You can't double speak.

Firstly, Green Bay hasn't done too much winning the past 5 years.

Secondly, to say it is ludacris that Tom Brady is the primary reason the Patriots have been good the past 20 years... well, that is ludicrous. Besides the head coach and the owner, Brady is the only thing consistent through the 20 years. He took a 5-11 team that was 0-2 before he started to the superbowl. He had a 16-0 team that returned most of its starters and was widely considered one of the best teams in history miss the playoffs without him. 11-5 is above average for a season, but in history its not even top 100. To go from one of the best 5 teams ever to out of the top 100- that's the Tom Brady effect. And Brady wasn't even replaced by a scrub like Rodgers/ Manning were. He was replaced by a pro bowl caliber player. A pro bowl caliber player took one of the best teams ever assembled and turned then into just ok. 9 other teams that year had the same record or better just. that. year. 0 teams in history did what the 2007 Patriots did in the regular season.

Thirdly, you say championships work as a GOAT factor in basketball, but not football, and you use the fact that the other professional players on Brady's teams have chipped in as reasoning. But I ask you, did Jordan not have help? Did Pippen not play supremely well? Did Paxton, Kukoc and Kerr not make big plays and clutch shots? Did Rodman, Grant, Wellington and Longley not play great defense and get big rebounds. Your argument here is doublespeak.

Lastly, Tom Brady, aside from being top 2 all time at audibles, the best ever at reading defenses, and top 5 in decision making, has won 6 titles, been to the superbowl 9 times, and been to a championship game 13 times, yet still had the hunger and passion to lead his team to go for another. That's next level leadership. Why is it every other superbowl loser ends up not making the playoffs the following year, including the 2008 Patriots, but not the 2012 Patriots or the 2018 Patriots?

Those intangibles he brings to the table are measured in the success the team has. He is already the greatest ever. It is clear as day. And as other qbs continue to get hurt, the naysayers will continue to spread the lie that the only reason Brady is able to continue playing at such a high level is because the league is touch football now.

Exactly. Rodgers is a great thrower of the football who is mobile. A better Steve Young. But how is he at audibles (questionable given how many plays he just throws the ball away because the defense flummoxed him)? Leadership (based on what former teammates have said...)?

There is so much more to quarterback than throwing the football and running when you can. Those who believe otherwise are the same ones who tell you a football game only has 14 minutes of actual football.

They just don't get the game.

Actually, I can. 

He was injured for pretty much all of 2017 and I think he was playing on a bum leg or with a bum arm for most of last year. Those two years are basically outliers. When he's healthy, the Packers go to the playoffs. When he gets to the playoffs, he usually gets his team to at least the second round. The Packers haven't always had a good team around him even when they were going to the playoffs year after year. So there you go.

Yeah, no shit. Why would the Patriots ever move on from Tom Brady? He's a great franchise QB. Him being on the team for as long and the team having as much success as it had is largely coincidental. The Patriots probably could've won about as much as they have without him. They did go 11-5 in 2008 when he was injured all season long. The Patriots success is largely because of Bill Belichick, great game planning, and really good players around Tom Brady all the time. 

AGAIN, I'm not saying Tom Brady sucks or isn't great -- he is without a doubt one of the great QBs of all time -- but you simply cannot give him most of the credit for the Patriots' success. 

He took them to the Super Bowl? He took them to the Super Bowl? 2,843 passing yards, 18 tds, 12 int, passer rating of 85.7 took the Patriots to the Super Bowl? Dude was a game manager that year. The success of the 2001 Patriots can largely be attributed to the game plan. AND... iirc, they shouldn't have even got past the Divisional Round against the Raiders due to a bullshit call that went the Patriots' way. So... yeah.

And he was legitimately great that season. Randy Moss really brought out the best in him as a passer. 

Matt Cassell is a scrub, tho.

Yes, he did. But it's easier to pinpoint why a team in basketball is having success, whereas it's more difficult in football. In basketball, there's only 13 players on a roster. A basketball player isn't throwing a ball to other players to score. A basketball player doesn't only play offense (although some players like James Harden take plays off on defense). A single player can take over a game in basketball. That's largely not the case for football. With some QBs it's very easy to tell that the team's success is because of them. You know, someone like Patrick Mahomes or Aaron Rodgers or Peyton Manning. When those QBs aren't healthy or fully healthy, the teams aren't as good. When Tom Brady is out, the Patriots still win. And I'm not intending to use that as indictment against Tom Brady. I'm really praising just how resilient the Patriots are and pointing out why it's a harder argument to make for why Tom Brady's the GOAT than people are making it seem. 

Is that even quantifiable? Peyton Manning was pretty fucking great at calling audibles and reading defenses too, dude.

Ok, I get it. You're a Patriots fan, aren't you?

*cough* 2014 Broncos, 2011 Steelers, 2015 Seahawks, 2013 49ers, 2017 Falcons, 2010 Colts *cough*

Rodgers, Rice, and Montana were never suspended for cheating. Shady Brady was suspended for cheating.

If a batter who was using steroids hits a grand slam in the 1st inning and then doesn't play or bat again for the rest of the game and his team wins by 10 runs, do we say "Well, even though they got 4 runs because a steroids user hit a grand slam, they still won by 10 runs so it doesn't matter that they had a steroids user playing?

If a swimmer in the Olympics jumps into the water 1 second before the gun goes off but wins the race by 10 seconds, should the judges just say "Well, even though he started 1 second before everyone else did, he still won by 10 seconds so it doesn't matter so we won't disqualify him for starting 1 seconds too early?

The moment that Shady Brady started using deflated footballs, the score doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that he cheated and that taints the ENTIRE game.



So if you're stopped for driving 100 MPH on the freeway and you go before a judge and tell the judge "Well, other drivers were speeding too", do you think the judge will stay "OK, you're excused for speeding."?

2 wrongs don't make a right. Shady Brady got caught cheating in that AFC Championship Game.



No, people hate Shady Brady because 1) he's a cheater and a fraud, 2) he refused to own up to his cheating and apologize to the fans and to the NFL even after he got caught cheating, and 3) he and the Pats orchestrated a nasty smear campaign against Ted Wells, whom Robert Kraft himself praised for his integrity when Wells was hired to conduct the independent investigation.

So basically, Shady Brady, Kraft, and the Pats were happy that a man of high integrity like Ted Wells was hired to conduct the investigation. But when Wells found plenty of evidence proving that Shady Brady cheated, all of a sudden Shady Brady, Kraft, and the Pats didn't like Wells anymore and orchestrated a smear campaign against Wells for simply doing his job and finding the truth.

The reason I hate cheaters and frauds like Shady Brady and don't give credit to cheaters and frauds like Shady Brady is because giving a cheater like Shady Brady credit would be a slap in the face to players like Dan Marino and Barry Sanders and plenty of other great players who worked their butts off their entire careers to try to earn a championship while Shady Brady just takes a shortcut and cheated his way to his championships without putting in any of the hard work that other players did.