metzelaars_lives Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I do this professionally. They can claim anything they want to make a story. It doesn't make them right. Now you're done with this........ What's that, troll me on Bills websites?
Adam Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 What's that, troll me on Bills websites? Yes, I saw you here and signed up. My life is about you lol
SactoBillFan Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 That is just easily refutable fill that doesn't aid your argument whatsoever. In 3 of those 4 he was also throwing to the greatest football player of all time. Meanwhile for three of Brady's he was throwing to Deion Branch, Troy Brown and David Givens. Of course they do. Go on football reference. QB's have win-loss records just like pitchers and goalies. Done with this one. Next. I don't think wins and losses is an official statistic in the NFL unlike baseball.
Adam Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I don't think wins and losses is an official statistic in the NFL unlike baseball. You are correct- by my understanding, the baseball pitcher has the W/L as more relevant, because the battle with the batters can be considered more 1 on 1 (you could make an argument against that). But its just something the media makes up to have a story
Deranged Rhino Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Actually I'm not done with this yet. How can you devote so much time and energy to a website about football and possess such an utterly preposterous opinion. So Montana is a notch greater because he got upset at home by the Giants in the 1990 NFC Championship game rather than had he won that game and then lost to the Bills in a close game in the Super Bowl that year? Really think about what you are saying. You are also dismissing the accomplishment the Bills made by getting there. I'm doing no such thing. All I'm pointing out is that your absurd statement that 4-2 is better than 4-0 in the super bowl is factually and mathematically incorrect. It's an inarguable position, for every edge you give to Montana you can give just as many to Brady: *Brady played his entire career in a league where 12 teams make it to the playoffs whereas Joe played the overwhelming majority of his career in an 8 team playoff system. *Montana played in a league without a cap, allowing dynasties but also in a league that had rules that favored the defense. Brady played in a capped league but in one where the rules undoubtedly favor the passer. Despite this, Joe still put up better super bowl numbers. *Montana was never accused of cheating, Brady has been on a team accused of cheating for going on a decade. *Brady played with far better defenses (from coaches to players) than Montana ever had in SF or KC. And despite this, Montana still went undefeated in the Super Bowl without throwing an INT. Yeah, this isn't about the Bills. They lost 4 in a row, it was an accomplishment to make it but there isn't one player on that team that wouldn't trade the other three trips for just one ring. And I've asked a lot of those guys that very question. This is about which QB would you rather have with the game on the line? The guy who's undefeated or the guy who's lost 2 and nearly lost 3 more but for the play of his team.
metzelaars_lives Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) I'm doing no such thing. All I'm pointing out is that your absurd statement that 4-2 is better than 4-0 in the super bowl is factually and mathematically incorrect. It's an inarguable position, for every edge you give to Montana you can give just as many to Brady: *Brady played his entire career in a league where 12 teams make it to the playoffs whereas Joe played the overwhelming majority of his career in an 8 team playoff system. *Montana played in a league without a cap, allowing dynasties but also in a league that had rules that favored the defense. Brady played in a capped league but in one where the rules undoubtedly favor the passer. Despite this, Joe still put up better super bowl numbers. *Montana was never accused of cheating, Brady has been on a team accused of cheating for going on a decade. *Brady played with far better defenses (from coaches to players) than Montana ever had in SF or KC. And despite this, Montana still went undefeated in the Super Bowl without throwing an INT. Yeah, this isn't about the Bills. They lost 4 in a row, it was an accomplishment to make it but there isn't one player on that team that wouldn't trade the other three trips for just one ring. And I've asked a lot of those guys that very question. This is about which QB would you rather have with the game on the line? The guy who's undefeated or the guy who's lost 2 and nearly lost 3 more but for the play of his team. The only thing I would concede is the cheating point. The 49ers had EXCELLENT defenses throughout Montana's career. Usually some of the very best in the league. In fact, I would say with a good degree of certainty that Montana had better defenses than Brady by and large. But once again, the bottom line is that you are saying that Brady winning an extra game that Montana couldn't and advancing to the Super Bowl only to lose there- as opposed to earlier in the playoffs- is a mark against Brady and a notch in Montana's column. It's insane what you are saying. You are basically arguing that 1) winning the Super Bowl is best, 2) not going to the Super Bowl is second best and 3) Going to the Super Bowl and losing is worst. So again, how can you tell me that Kelly going 0-4 is not worse than Dan Marino going 0-1? As you said, mathematically and irrefutably, 4-0 is better than 4-2 so by that same logic 0-1 has to be better than 0-4, right? Edited February 4, 2015 by metzelaars_lives
Deranged Rhino Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) The only thing I would concede is the cheating point. The 49ers had EXCELLENT defenses throughout Montana's career. Usually some of the very best in the league. But once again, the bottom line is that you are saying that Brady winning an extra game that Montana couldn't and advancing to the Super Bowl only to lose there- as opposed to earlier in the playoffs- is a mark against Brady. It's insane what you are saying. You are basically arguing that 1) winning the Super Bowl is best, 2) not going to the Super Bowl is second best and 3) Going to the Super Bowl and losing is worst. So again, how can you tell me that Kelly going 0-4 is not worse than Dan Marino going 0-1? As you said, mathematically and irrefutably, 4-0 is better than 4-2 so by that same logic 0-1 has to be better than 0-4, right? Belichick and the *pats defenses in their first half of their run were far superior to anything the Niners fielded. From scheme, to coaching, to players. The list of hall of famers from those *pats defenses will dwarf those of the Niners. It's not insane to say that Brady's performances in the Super Bowl were not as good as Montana's when the question you're debating is which QB is the GOAT. The greatest QB of all time plays the best in the biggest game. That's Joe and his undefeated record. Or maybe Bradshaw (ha). It's not Brady, who had more chances to go than Joe (more teams in the playoffs, increasing the odds that he makes it more often). Arguing which QB who didn't win a super bowl is the GOAT is as silly as it is irrelevant. Kelly and Marino will NEVER be in that category and frankly don't deserve to be. If you're going to be in the conversation for the GOAT, you need rings. Not just appearances. That's why your counter is so silly. The question is which QB is the GOAT, the one who went UNDEFEATED in the sport's biggest game (while also compiling plenty of other accolades and records along the way) or the guy who got two more chances to add a ring to his collection and still hasn't surpassed him. Yeah. You're wrong. ( clearly we're talking opinions, so there aren't any right or wrong answers... but you're still wrong. ) And it's not Manning, who keeps getting votes somehow. Edited February 4, 2015 by GreggyT
metzelaars_lives Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Belichick and the *pats defenses in their first half of their run were far superior to anything the Niners fielded. From scheme, to coaching, to players. The list of hall of famers from those *pats defenses will dwarf those of the Niners. It's not insane to say that Brady's performances in the Super Bowl were not as good as Montana's when the question you're debating is which QB is the GOAT. The greatest QB of all time plays the best in the biggest game. That's Joe and his undefeated record. Or maybe Bradshaw (ha). It's not Brady, who had more chances to go than Joe (more teams in the playoffs, increasing the odds that he makes it more often). Arguing which QB who didn't win a super bowl is the GOAT is as silly as it is irrelevant. Kelly and Marino will NEVER be in that category and frankly don't deserve to be. If you're going to be in the conversation for the GOAT, you need rings. Not just appearances. That's why your counter is so silly. The question is which QB is the GOAT, the one who went UNDEFEATED in the sport's biggest game (while also compiling plenty of other accolades and records along the way) or the guy who got two more chances to add a ring to his collection and still hasn't surpassed him. Yeah. You're wrong. ( clearly we're talking opinions, so there aren't any right or wrong answers... but you're still wrong. ) And it's not Manning, who keeps getting votes somehow. OK first off, let's please agree to stop using GOAT as an acronym. It simply does not work. Second of all, you are wrong! Fred Dean, Ronnie Lott and Charles Haley are three hall of famers that played a good amount of time alongside Joe Montana. The Patriots do not have any hall of famers from those teams as of yet. Is Tedy Bruschi a hall of famer? Ty Law? Lawyer Milloy? I don't think so. You are severely understating how good some of those 49ers defenses were.
Adam Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 The only thing I would concede is the cheating point. The 49ers had EXCELLENT defenses throughout Montana's career. Usually some of the very best in the league. In fact, I would say with a good degree of certainty that Montana had better defenses than Brady by and large. But once again, the bottom line is that you are saying that Brady winning an extra game that Montana couldn't and advancing to the Super Bowl only to lose there- as opposed to earlier in the playoffs- is a mark against Brady and a notch in Montana's column. It's insane what you are saying. You are basically arguing that 1) winning the Super Bowl is best, 2) not going to the Super Bowl is second best and 3) Going to the Super Bowl and losing is worst. So again, how can you tell me that Kelly going 0-4 is not worse than Dan Marino going 0-1? As you said, mathematically and irrefutably, 4-0 is better than 4-2 so by that same logic 0-1 has to be better than 0-4, right? Some would argue that they were a defensive oriented team, despite people always talking about the offenive personnel It's difficult to compare teams from different eras- especially with free agency altering everything so much
negativo Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Montana. Period. If you saw him play you know why. Clutch without fail, mobile, accurate beyond belief and did all of his work in an era when passing was a lot harder territory than it is today. Brady is an all time great, but he's proven mortal plenty of times while Montana's Super Bowl success was insane. BTW, much as I love Jim Kelly there is no way he should be in this poll above Marino.
Deranged Rhino Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 OK first off, let's please agree to stop using GOAT as an acronym. It simply does not work. Second of all, you are wrong! Fred Dean, Ronnie Lott and Charles Haley are three hall of famers that played a good amount of time alongside Joe Montana. The Patriots do not have any hall of famers from those teams as of yet. Is Tedy Bruschi a hall of famer? Ty Law? Lawyer Milloy? I don't think so. You are severely understating how good some of those 49ers defenses were. Fair, I agree to that term. I LOVE Haley and Lott still is one of my all time favorite players. But you're underestimating how good guys like Willie McGinest, Brusci (guy's going to be a HOFer, maybe not first ballot though), Ty Law (I'm with you but I'll take Law over Don Griffin or hell, maybe even Wright... maybe), Richard Seymour, and even Harrison (though he's a cheatin' bastid) were. Plus, Bellycheat is, unquestionably, the greatest defensive mind that's ever walked an NFL sideline -- so good he's found ways to win with lesser talent in recent years. But those early *pats defenses, with the help of SpyGate, bottled up the fastest show on turf and dominated opponents in the aftermath. The difference in eras makes the comparison impossible, but in terms of top to bottom talent (including coaching), give me Brady's defenses over Joe's.
truth on hold Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) Kelly -- endured a lot more, shown a lot more class and true leadership than that jackass Brady Edited February 4, 2015 by JTSP
metzelaars_lives Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Some would argue that they were a defensive oriented team, despite people always talking about the offenive personnel It's difficult to compare teams from different eras- especially with free agency altering everything so much Agreed 100%. You're not so bad after all. That's what I've been trying to say- that all you can do is compare guys relative to their respective eras. Because Ken Stabler got hit harder than Peyton Manning doesn't mean he is a better QB. Because Neil Lomax had to deal with CB's who could bump and press a lot more doesn't mean he is a better QB than Philip Rivers.
johnwalter Posted February 4, 2015 Author Posted February 4, 2015 On no planet is 4-2 better than 4-0. The point is to win, not just get in. Lets go through two scenarios: Two quarterbacks, QB-A and QB-B, get to the Conference Championship game 6 times each: QB-A goes 6-0 in his Conference championships, then goes 4-2 in his Super Bowl games. QB-B goes 4-2 in his Conference Championships, then goes 4-0 in his Super Bowl games. The 4-2 quarterback (QB-A) is more successful than the 4-0 quarterback (QB-B), he wins MORE. You can't penalize Brady for not losing earlier in the playoffs, like Montana did. If Brady had gone one-and-done in the 2007 and 2011 playoffs, would you really find that more impressive than him making it to (and almost winning) those additional two Super Bowls... after all, he'd be 4-0 !?!?
Fadingpain Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I hated him at the time, but Dan Marino had the most deadly, fast release of all time. Is he the single greatest QB of all time? Probably not, but man. Can you imagine if we had him in his prime on this current Bills team next year? We'd go to the Superbowl.
rumblefish Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Kelly 4 th in voting and ahead of Johnny U, voters must have never saw the great one play, and save the NFL with drive in overtime to win NFL championship,
metzelaars_lives Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) Lets go through two scenarios: Two quarterbacks, QB-A and QB-B, get to the Conference Championship game 6 times each: QB-A goes 6-0 in his Conference championships, then goes 4-2 in his Super Bowl games. QB-B goes 4-2 in his Conference Championships, then goes 4-0 in his Super Bowl games. The 4-2 quarterback (QB-A) is more successful than the 4-0 quarterback (QB-B), he wins MORE. You can't penalize Brady for not losing earlier in the playoffs, like Montana did. If Brady had gone one-and-done in the 2007 and 2011 playoffs, would you really find that more impressive than him making it to (and almost winning) those additional two Super Bowls... after all, he'd be 4-0 !?!? You would think this concept would be easier to understand than it has been on this thread. But yes Greggy T or whoever has in essence rewarded Montana for losing in the 1990 NFC Championship game. To him that is a greater accomplishment than had he won that game and then lost to the Bills the following week. This is a concept I would've fully understood in 3rd grade. He is basically saying that going to a Super Bowl is NOT an accomplishment. If you go and win, then yes that is an accomplishment; but if you go and lose, that is a blemish on your record and you are better off having not gone at all. It's a good thing Brady lost that AFC Championship game last year because the Pats were not beating that Seahawks team and in that case, he'd be 4-3 in Super Bowls and his legacy would really be tarnished for good. Edited February 4, 2015 by metzelaars_lives
ThurmasThoman Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) If you put Manning on the Patriots, and Brady in Indianapolis, Manning would have 8-10 rings, and Brady wouldn't have made the Colts roster his rookie year. It's not that Brady is a "system" QB, or anything else. It's just serendipity--that's why sports are so awesome. The conflux of scenarios that had to happen for Brady to be the GOAT happened... and now we have to live with the results: he's the GOAT. You have to judge athletes based on results, not hypotheticals. If you want to talk about who you feel could be the best if everything else was created equal... might as well throw Jeff George and Ryan Leaf up there. If Norwood's kick is 3 feet to the left, does Kelly win 5? Edited February 4, 2015 by JohnnyGold
Recommended Posts