Jordan or brady?
i like brady but jordan never lost and i believe without a question he would have had 8 championships and he was good enough to play double a. Did you guys know there has only been a dozen athletes to play in 2 major league sports and one of them was Chuck Conners, the Rifleman played for the Boston Celtics and the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Michael Jordan.

Even putting aside my Chicago sports fan bias, this isn't even a close debate in my mind.

Russell.

Brady has to rely on a defense and special teams plus 10 other offensive players.

Brady

Brady
NFL > NBA

(04-28-2021 12:49 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Brady
NFL > NBA

Jordan's answer as he then proceeds to destroy all things Brady:

Let's put it this way:

20 years from now, are people going to sit and watch a 10 episode documentary about Brady as a cultural event in the way that people watched The Last Dance?

20 years from now, are people going to be buying Tom Brady shoes? Heck, do they even buy Tom Brady shoes now?

Would people in Europe or China have any idea who Tom Brady is compared to how Michael Jordan was (and is still among) the most famous people in the history of this planet?

Would anyone watch Tom Brady in a movie with Bugs Bunny?

Look - I'm not disputing Tom Brady's on-the-field accomplishments. He's the best quarterback that I've ever seen.

However, Michael Jordan is THE singular dominant icon both within sports and outside of sports. I don't care if anyone personally likes the NBA or not: denying this is contrarian on the level of claiming that The Beatles weren't a big deal for rock music. The only athletes that can be seriously compared to MJ from a historical perspective are Muhammad Ali and Babe Ruth.

(04-28-2021 02:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 12:49 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Brady
NFL > NBA

Jordan's answer as he then proceeds to destroy all things Brady:

No doubt Mike was a great player, probably the greatest to ever play in the NBA. His problem isn’t his performance but the sport he played.

Football is the ultimate team sport. As Howard Schnellenberger said at a football clinic back in 1986. “I can recruit the greatest quarterback to ever play the game. If I don’t recruit ten other guys to go with him, he won’t be able to perform like it. Denny can recruit a 7 footer and immediately improve his team”

A great basketball player can carry a team. Time and time again we have seen it in the NCAA tournament. You don’t see that in football.

That’s what makes what Brady has done so impressive from a championship perspective.

(04-28-2021 02:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Let's put it this way:

20 years from now, are people going to sit and watch a 10 episode documentary about Brady as a cultural event in the way that people watched The Last Dance?

20 years from now, are people going to be buying Tom Brady shoes? Heck, do they even buy Tom Brady shoes now?

Would people in Europe or China have any idea who Tom Brady is compared to how Michael Jordan was (and is still among) the most famous people in the history of this planet?

Would anyone watch Tom Brady in a movie with Bugs Bunny?

Look - I'm not disputing Tom Brady's on-the-field accomplishments. He's the best quarterback that I've ever seen.

However, Michael Jordan is THE singular dominant icon both within sports and outside of sports. I don't care if anyone personally likes the NBA or not: denying this is contrarian on the level of claiming that The Beatles weren't a big deal for rock music. The only athletes that can be seriously compared to MJ from a historical perspective are Muhammad Ali and Babe Ruth.

Now if we’re talking marketability, I would certainly agree with you. That’s not however how I took the question. I look at it strictly between the lines.

(04-28-2021 11:13 AM)jaybird44 Wrote:  Jordan or brady?

i like brady but jordan never lost ...

Jordan by some distance.

Brady. Because his teams did WAY better with him than without him.

From 2001-2019, the Patriots went 219-64 when Brady started. They went 13-8 without him.

Patriots records in back-to-back years with & without Brady:

2000 (no Brady): 5-11
2001 (with Brady): 11-3; Super Bowl champs

2007 (with Brady): 16-0
2008 (Brady injured): 10-5 without Brady, missed playoffs

2019 (with Brady): 12-4, Super Bowl Champs
2020 (no Brady): 7-9


The Bulls were still a darn good team without Jordan. Without Jordan, BJ Armstrong and Horace Grant were named All-Stars and they went to the conference championship game.

92/93 (with Jordan, with Grant): 57-25 0.695
93/94 (no Jordan, with Grant): 55-27 0.671
94/95 start (no Jordan, no Grant): 39-31 0.557
94/95 end (with Jordan, no Grant): 13-4 0.765

Based solely on the Bulls' performance from 92/93-94/95, you could argue that Horace Grant was just as crucial to the Bulls' success as Jordan. The Bulls did better without Jordan than they did without Grant.

(04-28-2021 02:50 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 02:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 12:49 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Brady
NFL > NBA

Jordan's answer as he then proceeds to destroy all things Brady:

No doubt Mike was a great player, probably the greatest to ever play in the NBA. His problem isn’t his performance but the sport he played.

Football is the ultimate team sport. As Howard Schnellenberger said at a football clinic back in 1986. “I can recruit the greatest quarterback to ever play the game. If I don’t recruit ten other guys to go with him, he won’t be able to perform like it. Denny can recruit a 7 footer and immediately improve his team”

A great basketball player can carry a team. Time and time again we have seen it in the NCAA tournament. You don’t see that in football.

That’s what makes what Brady has done so impressive from a championship perspective.

Or, you could argue that's what made the Patriots great.

Bill Russell

(04-28-2021 03:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Brady. Because his teams did WAY better with him than without him.

From 2001-2019, the Patriots went 219-64 when Brady started. They went 13-8 without him.

Patriots records in back-to-back years with & without Brady:

2000 (no Brady): 5-11
2001 (with Brady): 11-3; Super Bowl champs

2007 (with Brady): 16-0
2008 (Brady injured): 10-5 without Brady, missed playoffs

2019 (with Brady): 12-4, Super Bowl Champs
2020 (no Brady): 7-9


The Bulls were still a darn good team without Jordan. Without Jordan, BJ Armstrong and Horace Grant were named All-Stars and they went to the conference semifinal round where they lost to the Knicks.

92/93 (with Jordan, with Grant): 57-25 0.695
93/94 (no Jordan, with Grant): 55-27 0.671
94/95 start (no Jordan, no Grant): 39-31 0.557
94/95 end (with Jordan, no Grant): 13-4 0.765

Based solely on the Bulls' performance from 92/93-94/95, you could argue that Horace Grant was just as crucial to the Bulls' success as Jordan. The Bulls did better without Jordan than they did without Grant.

FIFY. It was the Knicks, who beat the Bulls, and the Pacers in the Eastern Conference Finals in 1994.

Also, how could you forget to mention Scottie Pippen? Seriously?

Brady's won more titles, but he's also lost more in the championship round than MJ ever has, which is zero.

Also, MJ is a pop culture behemoth, not to mention he revolutionized the way basketball was played. We buy his shoes, clothes, etc. Not only that, but he also actually owns a professional basketball team.

I don't like Brady because, well....I'm a hater. But you got to respect his work ethic and devotion to the game and making himself and his team better.

Jordan changed the game, he was an icon.

Jordan, easy.

Also, Peyton Manning > Tom Brady and no one will convince me otherwise.

(04-29-2021 02:26 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 03:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Brady. Because his teams did WAY better with him than without him.

From 2001-2019, the Patriots went 219-64 when Brady started. They went 13-8 without him.

Patriots records in back-to-back years with & without Brady:

2000 (no Brady): 5-11
2001 (with Brady): 11-3; Super Bowl champs

2007 (with Brady): 16-0
2008 (Brady injured): 10-5 without Brady, missed playoffs

2019 (with Brady): 12-4, Super Bowl Champs
2020 (no Brady): 7-9


The Bulls were still a darn good team without Jordan. Without Jordan, BJ Armstrong and Horace Grant were named All-Stars and they went to the conference semifinal round where they lost to the Knicks.

92/93 (with Jordan, with Grant): 57-25 0.695
93/94 (no Jordan, with Grant): 55-27 0.671
94/95 start (no Jordan, no Grant): 39-31 0.557
94/95 end (with Jordan, no Grant): 13-4 0.765

Based solely on the Bulls' performance from 92/93-94/95, you could argue that Horace Grant was just as crucial to the Bulls' success as Jordan. The Bulls did better without Jordan than they did without Grant.

FIFY. It was the Knicks, who beat the Bulls, and the Pacers in the Eastern Conference Finals in 1994.

Also, how could you forget to mention Scottie Pippen? Seriously?

Hah! I actually wrote up a whole thing on Scottie vs Jordan's impact on the team. I deleted it because this is asking about Brady vs Jordan, not Scottie vs Jordan.

One snippet from that:

Jordan played 5 seasons without Pippen. All 5 were under .500 seasons.

Pippen played 6 full seasons without Jordan. All 6 were over .500 seasons.


Scottie & Jordan were both great players. But Rodman is probably the most valuable NBA player of all time to his team:

https://skepticalsports.com/the-case-for...man-guide/

For basketball: Jordan
For football: Brady


It may seem like a dumb answer, but I personally find it dumb to try and compare accomplishments across two different sports. That might just be me though...otherwise we'd need to start looking at Serena and what she did in tennis and Simone Biles and what she's still doing in gymnastics (where she's had moves banned from competition because they're too hard for others and the judges don't want them risking injury by trying it).

Also being from Boston I'd probably need to put Russell in above Jordan anyway, but that wasn't the question.