bobobonators Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 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. Top 3 greatest QB of all time if not the greatest of all time. This Super Bowl will not hurt him at all even if he loses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) Brady is the #1 QB of all time and it's no longer even close. Â Other all-time greats have bad games. Their teams lose a 35-20 game here and there where it's just not their day. Â Brady and the Pats lose 1-2 games a year, and when they do it comes right down to the wire. I don't think they've lost by more than 1 score in a couple years with Brady playing. Â That's why he is the GOAT to me. The idea of them losing is almost unthinkable. The idea that they could lose in a game that isn't close seems almost impossible. Â Even Montana would have some clunkers when they lost. Edited January 23, 2017 by TheFunPolice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 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. Â His legacy is not taking a hit, every yr he just keeps adding wins which keeps adding to his greatness. Tom is now the GOAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) 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 wereks. Â LOL! Â Nice try. Edited January 23, 2017 by HoF Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted January 23, 2017 Author Share Posted January 23, 2017 It has become apparent that several posters were unable to pick up the sarcasm in my original post. I WAS JOKING. Of course 4-2 > 4-0. I started the post because the argument to the contrary, which is a common one around here, is my biggest peeve of all football arguments. I apologize for the confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 It's time for Matt Ryan to live up to the hype. Â He'll need a 350+ passing yard, 3+ TD kind of day for this to even be close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted January 23, 2017 Author Share Posted January 23, 2017 It's time for Matt Ryan to live up to the hype. Â He'll need a 350+ passing yard, 3+ TD kind of day for this to even be close. What would lead anyone to think this game won't be close? I honestly thought this game would be a pick em. Very surprised to see the Pats -3. I'd imagine the Pats get 3 points based on Belichick and their experience. These teams are dead even going into this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterpan Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) His legacy, to me and it should be to a lot more people, is that of a worthless cheater who has been caught cheating in EVERY SEASON they won a Super Bowl. Â IMO they would have NEVER WON any of those superbowls without cheating. The first two aren't even a stretch in me saying that. Brady held those teams back and they barely squeaked by whilst knowing the other teams plays beforehand. Â He is nothing but a worthless cheater who wouldn't be anyone with out the cheating. He is the Bernie Madoff of football. Â PS the Patriots record without brady is just as good as it is with him. Edited January 23, 2017 by peterpan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 The good news is the Falcons can score a lot. Quickly. And often. Â Every drive you need a score. You're allowed a maximum of 2 FGs on 4th and long situations in scoring range. After that, you're just conceding defeat by kicking a FG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 His legacy, to me and it should be to a lot more people, is that of a worthless cheater who has been caught cheating in EVERY SEASON they won a Super Bowl. Â IMO they would have NEVER WON any of those superbowls without cheating. The first two aren't even a stretch in me saying that. Brady held those teams back and they barely squeaked by whilst knowing the other teams plays beforehand. Â He is nothing but a worthless cheater who wouldn't be anyone with out the cheating. He is the Bernie Madoff of football. Â PS the Patriots record without brady is just as good as it is with him. Really they are 4-2 in the SB without Brady. Funny thought Steelers have the most rings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterpan Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Really they are 4-2 in the SB without Brady. Funny thought Steelers have the most rings I don't understand your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 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 watched them both. Yes the overall level of play was better and therefore the competition was tougher. Teams were allowed to hit in practice, systems were in place longer and teams were better at them. The quality of the product is diminished in this era. I said nothing about Matt Stanford in particular. Eli Manning , the average QB defeated Brady twice in the Super Bowl. He was more clutch and made better pays. In the end, I watched Montana and Brady and in my opinion Montana was better. His undefeated 4-0 record in the Super Bowl will not be surpassed by Brady . Perhaps by someone else. You and others feel otherwise. I don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 I don't understand your post. Your statement  Patriots record is the Same without Brady. So where are there 4 other rings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted January 23, 2017 Author Share Posted January 23, 2017 I watched them both. Yes the overall level of play was better and therefore the competition was tougher. Teams were allowed to hit in practice, systems were in place longer and teams were better at them. The quality of the product is diminished in this era. I said nothing about Matt Stanford in particular. Eli Manning , the average QB defeated Brady twice in the Super Bowl. He was more clutch and made better pays. In the end, I watched Montana and Brady and in my opinion Montana was better. His undefeated 4-0 record in the Super Bowl will not be surpassed by Brady . Perhaps by someone else. You and others feel otherwise. I don't care. But who was an middle-tier QB 30 years ago? Neil Lomax? Was he better than Matthew Stafford and Eli Manning? I realize they took more physical abuse but they definitely were not better at throwing footballs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatsFanNH Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) It has become apparent that several posters were unable to pick up the sarcasm in my original post. I WAS JOKING. Of course 4-2 > 4-0. I started the post because the argument to the contrary, which is a common one around here, is my biggest peeve of all football arguments. I apologize for the confusion. A lot of us missed the sarcasm because we have heard so many idiot talking heads take this point of view. (ESPN First Take) I mean you literally had Stephen A. Sitting there listing all the QBs Brady lost to as a reason why he isn't as good as Montana. Edited January 23, 2017 by PatsFanNH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterpan Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Your statement  Patriots record is the Same without Brady. So where are there 4 other rings? 11-5 with Matt Cassell and 3-1 this year. Thats 14- 6. Whats Brady's career record? LIkely very similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatsFanNH Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 His legacy, to me and it should be to a lot more people, is that of a worthless cheater who has been caught cheating in EVERY SEASON they won a Super Bowl. Â IMO they would have NEVER WON any of those superbowls without cheating. The first two aren't even a stretch in me saying that. Brady held those teams back and they barely squeaked by whilst knowing the other teams plays beforehand. Â He is nothing but a worthless cheater who wouldn't be anyone with out the cheating. He is the Bernie Madoff of football. Â PS the Patriots record without brady is just as good as it is with him. So spying on the Defensive signals with a camera shut down the Rams High Flying O??? OOOOOK! The second win Bradybhad over 300 yard and I think 3 TDs so no idea how that held them back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 11-5 with Matt Cassell and 3-1 this year. Thats 14- 6. Whats Brady's career record? LIkely very similar. Did they Win a Superbowl (or heck make the playoffs with Cassell?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan130 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 I dont think it matters what he does. His legacy is cemented. He is probably the greatest of all time, and if he wins, well i think he just puts an exclamation mark on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatsFanNH Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 11-5 with Matt Cassell and 3-1 this year. Thats 14- 6. Whats Brady's career record? LIkely very similar. YEAR before Cassel (same team) 18-1 year 13 -1 so combined 31-2.. yup not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts