Originally posted by quanchi112
He won two with him and two without him. Brady won zero with Moss and how many with Edelmen. So quit acting like a great receiver makes it easier when Brady didn't won any when he had Moss. Montana already won 2 without Rice anyways. You act as if he couldn't win one without him. Brady has always had bellichick and his schemes his entire career.
I'm not necessarily talking about the SBs only. Montana had Rice throughout most of his career, which obviously helped him tremendously to bolster his numbers and overall statistics. I'd like to see how even more ridiculous Brady's numbers would be had he played with a prime Randy Moss for 7+ seasons. But whatever, we're not talking about numbers anymore, right?
Also, don't act like Belichick is such an advantage when Montana also won with one of the best coaches ever in Walsh.
Because he lost with a superior team to an inferior team in the biggest games of the year.
As I said, the fact that a team has a lesser record does not mean said team is less competent or worse as a whole. A 10-6 can be better than a 16-0 team once the playoffs start, particuarly if the 10-6 team is coming in with a hot streak and playing its best football in December.
Number of championships also doesn't denote superiority. That's a horrible point. Does anyone say Bill Russell is better than Jordan ? Think my Mexican friend.
Lmao, that's a horrible comparison; it's way off.
Number of championships doesn't necessarily denote superiority, yes. In this case, however, you're the one calling Brady out for losing a championship, so I naturally countered by saying he's won and been in more than Montana, either way.
That doesn't mean the strength and consistency of the skill shown goes out the window. Games matter. The sbowl matters. Losing when you're a heavy favorite for being the superior team to an inferior team matters. That hurts you. If he got waxed by an all time great defense that'd be one thing but that was never the case.
This has already been addressed above.
Montana played in a much more formidable era. When he lost he lost to great teams. The teams of the 80's and 90's were super powers compared to the watered down teams of the salary cap. Montana also had to combat dbs beating the shit out of his wideouts. It was a much more physical game which doesn't benefit the finesse passing game of the pats of today.
Now you're moving the goalposts. And you're also being a hypocrite. First, you call out Brady for being held to 14 points. Then, you say that since football is a team sport, championships don't matter that much in terms of individual superiority. In that case, and according to your own logic, the Patriots were held to 14 points, not Brady. I mean, the blame isn't nearly entirely on him for being held to a low total, because they're a team, right? 🙂
Afterwards, when I countered by saying Montana was neutered in the playoffs more often than Brady ever has been, you decide to change your argument to 'teams in that era were better', as a way to excuse Montana for his shortcomings.
So, which is it? You can't have it every which way you want.
They destroyed the evidence because it undermines the integrity of the game. You can pretend they didn't do so and be a fool but your stance is the NFL embellished a scandal as well as ignoring coaches, mangini, etc. calling then out for cheating.
Lol, it's not about pretending shit. If you want to believe they've cheated every single time/season they've won SBs, by all means do so.
I, however, am not a fool as to blatantly and blindly deny the Patriots' superiority over the rest of the league for the past decade and a half. There are a ton of excuses, and the 'they've always been cheaters' one is getting old.
It's an asterisk and will always stain their legacy. Like it or not it's out there.
We can agree on that.
As I previously said a guy that wins more championships isn't by definition a better player.
Very well, then don't call out Brady for losing 2 of them. 🙂
Jordan lost sure but he never lost in the finals. Same can be said for Montana. Montana never threw a pick in four games. Brady threw a pick in his first one.
Lmao, since when is not getting to the finals better than getting to the finals and losing? Flawed logic right there.
The team was gassed. 90 some plays and the defense allowed no points on the final four possessions. Holding the offense to three touchdowns is bellichick you ****.
Agreed. Still, does Brady deserve little/no credit for being the main offensive weapon in the most impressive comeback in all SB history?
Doubtful.
Montana doesn't deserve all the credit either but in four of the biggest games in the universe he never threw a pick. He was flawless in a much more anti QB era.
You said you didn't want to play the numbers game. Wanna compare Montana's playoffs stats to Brady's?