@Petrus:
- 1) Those QB's played less games 2) They didn't really have to carry a offense like a Brady, Manning or Montana, thus a better efficiency.
Especially Mark and Alex, tbh.
- No one said QR is the end all be all, but it factors in many significant QB stats when determining the end product. So, it counts for something.
- As for the rest of your stats - Brady played more games so, of course his overall career totals will be better - but in a per game basis Montana is > Brady, if stats is your measurement.
Originally posted by Deronn_solo
@Petrus:
- 1) Those QB's played less games 2) They didn't really have to carry a offense like a Brady, Manning or Montana, thus a better efficiency.Especially Mark and Alex, tbh.
- No one said QR is the end all be all, but it factors in many significant QB stats when determining the end product. So, it counts for something.
- As for the rest of your stats - Brady played more games do of course his over all totals will be better - but in a per game basis Montana is > Brady if stats is your measurement.
👆
Originally posted by quanchi112
The game isn't about stats it's about winning championships.
Originally posted by quanchi112
As I previously said a guy that wins more championships isn't by definition a better player..
By this logic home field advantage doesn't matter neither do stats since all that matters is who plays better that day. Pats were heavily favored and they blew it. The offense wasn't great on the biggest stage. Brady being held to fourteen points is pitiful since he had a hall of fame wideout.
Homefield doesn't really matter that much when the team you're going against is playing its best football of the season, yeah.
Montana being one-and-done in the playoffs multiple times having the GOAT WR is pitiful, too, I guess. That's your logic.
Brady lost two. His team and his play was more consistent all year. Playing balls out matters in the sbowl. Ask Matt Ryan how being the MVP of the regular season matters when he underperformed at pivotal moments in the biggest game of the year. Hell, the pats were 3-1 without him this year. Their backup got hurt as well. The coach and this team is fantastic even without him. Montana's flawless play if the stuff of legend. Only he and Jordan are flawless when it matters and unblemished in the losses category of championships.
I'm not going to keep arguing against a logic that says having reached 4 SBs and won 4 > having reached 7 and won 5, tbh.
The offense was record setting so he is the general of the offense.
Moving goalposts again. 👆
They are a dynasty but they still cheated so it stains their history in any event. What other franchise has these massive nationwide cheating scandals in which the organization was punished by the commissioner ?
I agree that all the scandals put a definite stain on Brady's legacy.
I am saying despite being in four games and the manner in which the dbs were allowed to maim wideouts he never really threw a pick. Brady in a softer era threw many sbowl picks and underperformed as well, twice. Losses in the biggest game matter. Eli owns him in direct matchups. He went down to win twice despite being on far less talented teams.
We can also agree that Montana is a better SB QB than Brady.
Originally posted by Deronn_solo
@Petrus:
- 1) Those QB's played less games 2) They didn't really have to carry a offense like a Brady, Manning or Montana, thus a better efficiency.Especially Mark and Alex, tbh.
Of course. For a second there I just thought that based solely on these stats you'd actually think they're better.
- No one said QR is the end all be all, but it factors in many significant QB stats when determining the end product. So, it counts for something.- As for the rest of your stats - Brady played more games so, of course his overall career totals will be better - but in a per game basis Montana is > Brady, if stats is your measurement.
That's the thing. The stats for Brady are superior because he played more playoff games in almost the same amount of seasons. Leading your team to the playoffs and thus having more wins, TDs, etc. beats out Montana's playoff legacy, in my opinion.
If we go strictly on a game-to-game basis, Montana is better, yes. But to me, winning more playoff games has more merit. I'd understand why you disagree, tho.
Originally posted by PetrusHime field is an advantage. No one said it can't be overcome you baboon. It's still and vantage hence why teams play for the number one seed. Just as cheating can be an advantage but again it can be overcame but an advantage nonetheless.Homefield doesn't really matter that much when the team you're going against is playing its best football of the season, yeah.
Montana being one-and-done in the playoffs multiple times having the GOAT WR is pitiful, too, I guess. That's your logic.
As has Brady been one and done. When Montana went to the sbowl with a great wideout he won. When he went without Jerry Rice he won. Brady went to the sbowl with a great wideout and he lost. He won without great wideouts so acting as if this clearly significantly matters ignores Brady's own Sbowl resume.
Being flawless is far better in individual play. This is about I difficult play not just whose team wins alone. Winning is clearly the most important objective of any team but losing two championships and playing far worse in the biggest game of the year twice clearly brings down his average.
I'm not going to keep arguing against a logic that says having reached 4 SBs and won 4 > having reached 7 and won 5, tbh.
[/B]
Saying this over and over again isn't debating.
Moving goalposts again. 👆[/B]
When discussing the greatest of all time this diminishes him. Montana has no such stains.I agree that all the scandals put a definite stain on Brady's legacy.
We can also agree that Montana is a better SB QB than Brady. [/B]
Montana is the guy I want on my team to win. He also is more mobile which is another advantage for him over Brady.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Hime field is an advantage. No one said it can't be overcome you baboon. It's still and vantage hence why teams play for the number one seed. Just as cheating can be an advantage but again it can be overcame but an advantage nonetheless.
And I never actually said homefield is not an advantage, lol. But this advantage is not as relevant as you make it out to be, particularly if the team you play against is playing lights out when the playoffs start. The problem is that a lot of Wild-Card teams enter the playoffs not playing great football, which is exactly they're Wild-Cards.
As has Brady been one and done. When Montana went to the sbowl with a great wideout he won. When he went without Jerry Rice he won. Brady went to the sbowl with a great wideout and he lost. He won without great wideouts so acting as if this clearly significantly matters ignores Brady's own Sbowl resume.
You've missed the point completely, and have been using circular logic and moving the goalposts ever since. So, let me explain.
We've stopped talking about numbers at your request, yet you continued to argue how Brady's failed in the big game with Moss as his top WR for some unknown reason, at which point I countered by saying Montana was one-and-done way more often than Brady has been, among other things. Then you started bringing up Belichick, how teams were tougher in that era, etc. You know the rest.
Anyway, you keep writing the same argument over and over, so it's time I put this to rest.
Now, you've been back and forth on this, showing your inconsistency in terms of what you actually think, but don't act like you're advocating for the 'the WR you have is irrelevant', because you've been bashing Brady for losing with Moss and praising Montana for winning without Rice:
Originally posted by quanchi112
Brady had moss and didn't win with him. The game isn't about stats it's about winning championships. Montana won two sbowls when he had a great wideout Brady didn't. Brady was 18-1. Held to fourteen points despite record setting stats.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Montana won two sbowls without him. Brady failed the year he had one of the best wideouts ever to a 10-6 squad. Their offense was limited to fourteen points in the biggest game of the year. Brady was neutered.
Either way, as I stated before, I didn't bring up Rice to mention his impact in the SBs he played in, I brought him up in relation to Montana's overall numbers during his career. Per your request, we have not talked about numbers, so I don't see why you keep bringing this up when I actually never said having an elite WR in the SB is pivotal. You started it by bashing Brady for losing with Moss, and now you're backing down because you've realized for good that he's won without him and doesn't really matter.
Are we done?
Being flawless is far better in individual play. This is about I difficult play not just whose team wins alone. Winning is clearly the most important objective of any team but losing two championships and playing far worse in the biggest game of the year twice clearly brings down his average.
Okay, so I guess that someone who's won 2 SBs as opposed to 4 or 5, and has only managed to reach those two SBs in his entire career can be considered flawless and much better in terms of individual play.
By your logic, then, goddamn Floyd Mayweather -- who retired with a 49-0 record -- should be praised and rewarded more greatly than Julio César Chávez [107-4 record] and Muhammad Ali [56-5].
When discussing the greatest of all time this diminishes him. Montana has no such stains.
This is true, but the thing is, to me, the Patriots would've still won every single SB they've won with or without their alleged cheating. So even if it's a huge stain on Brady's legacy, it doesn't make a difference in terms of his actual accomplishments.
Montana is the guy I want on my team to win. He also is more mobile which is another advantage for him over Brady.
Sure, but if we're going to start analyzing and comparing their playing styles, we'd need to take into account the rule changes and numbers, something you don't want to do.
@Petrus, your insufferable post won't show up with the quote you degenerate.
Since you acknowledge its an advantage and that it can be overcome you concede the point. The problem is most wild card teams aren't consistent all year hence why they didn't win the division aka they aren't as good. You have more years than not of the top two seeds winning the sbowl as opposed to the bottom two seeds winning. This isn't hard to grasp.
I've always said Brady's losses hurt him in the sbowl. He had the talent all around him. Montana didn't fail when he had the talent around him. Brady's production has went downhill in the postseason and in the Sbowl. Montana is the cream of the crop.
This isn't just about regular season production. If we talk numbers only Peyton Manning is in the conversation despite his consistent drop off in the playoffs. Regular season numbers are fine and it shows a body of work but we all know great qb's really increase their numbers sometimes in a loss or against weak defenses. The playoffs is the battle of the elite. Montana is better than Brady. Plain and simple. What's worse for Brady is he played in an era which favors offensive production and protects the QB. What's worse is he cheated. What's worse is he lost to sbowls to not all time great teams. What's worse is he did so the year he had all the weapons, numbers, and the best record he's ever put up in the same season. That's called a stain.
An unblemished record is fantastic but we also look at the opponents. Montana beat hall of fame qb's in the sbowl. Marino and Elway. Marino had all,the numbers that year as well but came up short in the biggest game of the year. Ironic when the same thing happened to Brady in 07. ****, in Montana's times we had all time great teams, the 85 Bears, the 86 Giants, etc.
You can't prove they would have won without the cheating since they cheated. It's like saying if the Seahawks don't toss it on the go alone and instead run the ball they won the sbowl. We only know what happened and can speculate as to the likelihood.
Why wouldn't we analyze their strengths and weaknesses ? The rule changes make it easier for the QB. That's undeniable and the point of the rule changes.
Montana as well as Jordan is unblemished in championships. Mythic. Stuff of legend.