metzelaars_lives

Ha we got one! OK so easy question: Is Joe Montana a greater all time QB as it stands vs. had he won the additional three conference championships he lost but then lost in the Super Bowl instead? In other words 4-3 with 7 conference championships instead of 4. Yes or no. I'll hang up and listen. And also, yes, it was harder to play the position back then, agreed. But this idea that the level of play was better? What? Matthew Stafford and Eli Manning are like average QB's now. You think the 14th best QB in 1985 was better than Matthew Stafford? That's laughable.

I hope some of you kept reading and saw that my OP was 100% sarcastic. Even if they do lose, Brady's legacy is still bolstered by winning another conference championship. Conference championships are good. It's why the Bills have like eight hall of famers from that era.

He's probably already the best player to ever play the game.

Of course it is. But 4-2 is also better than 4-0. So is 4-3. The logic of anyone who says otherwise is to insist that Super Bowl appearances are actually a blemish on your record if you don't win and that you'd have been better off going 7-9. And as Bills fans there is a ton of irony there.

Correct. It is a calling out of sorts to the approximately 10% of TBD posters who still adhere to the most idiotic, illogical, easily refutable football argument I have ever heard in my life (and that is not hyperbole) that Montana's 4-0 Super Bowl record > Brady's 4-2 Super Bowl record.

Yeah but he can never catch Montana as far as his Super Bowl legacy. Even if he goes 7-2, he can never catch Montana's 4-0. You see, part of the beauty of Montana's career was losing three conference championship games to help preserve his perfect 4-0 Super Bowl record.

We all know that, as it stands, Brady's 4-2 Super Bowl record pales in comparison to Montana's undefeated 4-0 record (as well as Bradshaw's). Even with a win in two weeks, 5-2 still can't eclipse going undefeated like Montana, whom he can never catch. I think, interestingly enough, he may have been better off losing yesterday because if they do in fact lose to the high flying Falcons now, and his Super Bowl record drops all the way to 4-3, his legacy takes an enormous hit. At that point, you may have to start elevating such undefeated Super Bowl QB's as Doug Williams, Mark Rypien, Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Joe Flacco- certainly Eli Manning- to maybe not all time greater QB's than Brady, but definitely all time greater Super Bowl performing QB's. As has been established on this board, playing in the Super Bowl is a very dangerous game- if you win, obviously your legacy is elevated. But if you lose, your legacy takes a hit and you're better off having not made it in the first place. For instance, a guy like Donovan McNabb is a far greater all time QB for losing all those NFC Championship games than he would be if he won them but lost in the Super Bowl. Shall be very interesting to see how this plays out in a couple weeks.

Ehh I'm not sure Terry Pegula cares more about the Bills winning than I do.

I wish I could see those tweets but Thurman blocked me for arguing politics with him last summer.

Reading comprehension my friend. I never said I was sure of the fact that he was not a hall of famer. I said he's not a hall of famer yet but if he plays a few more years he could get in as sort of a lifetime achievement award. And dude, Dan Fouts was a vastly superior QB relative to his era than Rivers ever was. Moon was better but not way better but got an easier pass because he was basically blackballed by the NFL and was great in the CFL too. EDIT: I take it back, Moon was way better relative to era too. He was a consensus top 5 QB the majority of his career. Again, there was never a time when Rivers was definitively a top 5 QB.

Philip Rivers is not a hall of fame QB- certainly not yet. Numbers are so inflated now, that means very little. Zero Super Bowl appearances trumps your numbers. He's less of a hall of famer than Jim Thome, who will take a while getting in. I'm not sure Rivers was ever considered a top 5 NFL QB at any point in his career. If he plays for a few more years maybe he gets the Bert Blyleven/Goose Gossage lifetime achievement award but as it stands, right behind him (in terms of passing yards) are Bledsoe and Palmer- not hall off famers- and right above him is Testaverde. He's got a ways to go.

Ahh that makes way more sense.

Peyton Manning broke 3500 yards once? Dude.

It's "whom" when you're talking about people, not "which."

Ha if Denver scored as many points a game this year as we did, they might still be playing right now.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

What are you arguing? Your response to what I said makes zero sense. Some dude said once every 20-30 years a team wins a Super Bowl on the backs of their defense and I said it's way more often than that. It is. That's fine. But if you're listing the reasons they won those Super Bowls, their defense comes first.

Yes, he's a hall of famer. He's also not the reason the Giants beat the Pats twice. Certainly not the year the Pats were 18-0 and the Giants held them to 17 points. Much the same way Peyton Manning is a hall of famer and also not the reason the Broncos won it last year.

It's definitely way more often than that. This century alone you got last year's Broncos, the Bucs, the Ravens and at least one, if not both, of those Giants teams.

I could be persuaded into thinking it's not a bad idea to take a flier on him in the later rounds but man is he an idiot.

Hey we agree sometimes.

This dude is such a loser.

+1

Just curious, that's all.

What were your thoughts on Taylor going as an alternate last year and being named an alternate again this year? Also fantastic?