IgorK wrote: levon wrote:
Duke4life831 wrote:6 superbowls is far more impressive than 6 NBA championships.
as someone who doesn't watch football, why do you say that? my understanding is that individual NBA players influence the outcome in basketball more than individuals in football?
Brady's 6 is already greater than Jordan's 6. It's more difficult to win in football for many reasons - 1-and-done playoff format, less control (Brady only plays offense, so he has no say on the defensive end, unlike basketball players), and the fact that you have 50+ teammates you need to rely on
(whereas in basketball you're playing with a 12-man roster which shrinks to about 8 during playoffs).
I mean, from an individual perspective, that actually make Brady sounds less impressive. It highlights that he needed the organization to be as great as it was to support him and allow for the accomplishment to happen. Whereas Jordan's feels more like it was all him. Brady was on the sideline effectively as a cheerleader in some of those most key moments of the Patiots 6 rings, where Jordan always played some kind of active role in every key moment.
I think from a *team* perspective the Patriots winning 6 is far more impressive than the Bulls winning 6, but from any 1 player perspective, Jordan's performance in those 6 rings is more Impressive than Brady's performance in his 6.
I think that by saying team success being harder to achieve in the NFL is in itself is admission that one player can't really have that much impact on the game which suggests Brady didn't have as much impact as Jordan. It's simply the nature of their sports.
This is further supported by the fact that Brady wasn't even the MVP of the Superbowl in 2 of his Finals. And Brady was only the league MVP 3 times vs Jordan's 6s. BOTH of thse strongly support that Brady had to rely on his team more than Jordan did. Tom brady stats in his most recent superbowl win: 21-35, 262 YDS, 1 INT For a QB those are worse than Lebron game 6 vs mavs in 2011 level stats, except his defense bailed him out for the win.
If people are going to hold it against Kobe in the Kobe vs Lebron debate that Kobe wasn't the best player in the finals in 3 of his finals, why doesn't Brady get the same treatment when he wasn't the MVP of 2 of his finals? Same goes for Steph Curry. When you compare Lebron and steph curry, they both have 3 rings, but then you realize Lebron was Finals MVP 3 times. You have to think the same way when comparing Brady in superbowls and Jordan in Finals.
PhilBlackson wrote:The issue I have with that is Brady has had a couple of Superbowls "he" won where he was actually pretty mediocre to dare I say bad (gasp) but the Pats' TEAM DEFENSE was really what won them the game but hey he's the GOAT so he gets the narrative of all the credit...
For that reason, Jordan is still ahead for me.
Michael Jordan was pretty bad against SuperSonics in NBA Finals 1996 and got bailed out by Dennis Rodman in that series.
Nobody cares or even remembers. Same will happened with Brady even if he was poor in some of those SuperBowls wins.
Jordan still had 27.3, 5.3, 4.2, 1.7, 0.2. He was fairly inefficient but everything else measures up, including his D. Those are still great stats for an NBA player and not nearly as bad as the stats brady has put up in some superbowls.