Anyone else get a kick out of the whole "Montana is undefeated in super bowls" argument?

[Bruins29]

Well Marshall Faulk did say that Montanna got to 4 first...so that is a good reason.

On a more serious note, if people are going to start threads and get upset anytime someone goes full ****** to attempt to justify why TB isnt ___________ then its YOU that are the problem.

Its never going to end. As someone wrote yesterday when TB has 5 Muppetts like Faulk will just change the criteria to suit his narrative.

 

[fightingirish595]

Trent Dilfer is 1-0 in Super Bowls
Brett Favre is 1-1. Russell Wilson is also 1-1.

Logically, I guess that means Dilfer is the better QB than both of them.

I can take this kind of argument to school all day.

Not really. No one is saying Joe Montana is better than Tom brady because of that alone. The comparison is between two iconic players. Probably the top 2 at their position. Their using the Super Bowl performance and record as a deciding factor. Your comparison doesn't make much sense to me

 

[Bruins29]

4-0 is better than 4-2 in my opinion.

Actually it isnt. If you have played competitive sports you would know this. Or just lived in reality.

 

[Bruins29]

Not really. No one is saying Joe Montana is better than Tom brady because of that alone. The comparison is between two iconic players. Probably the top 2 at their position. Their using the Super Bowl performance and record as a deciding factor. Your comparison doesn't make much sense to me

Using SB record dosnt work though. Both won 4...period. If TB only had 3 all the Montana homers and Brady haters may have had a case. It ended with 49.

The fact that TB made it to two more Superbowls just strengthens the simple logical argument that TB did more.

Its not even debatable. The only reason it keeps coming up are people trolling for reactions and Montana homers and Brady haters who cant deal with reality.

 

[fightingirish595]

Actually it isnt. If you have played competitive sports you would know this. Or just lived in reality.

Really because im pretty sure winning 100 percent of your games is better than 67 percent. I'm sure someone will get this confused that I think Montana is better than Brady some how though

 

[bigballas]

Eli is better than Montana . He's is undefeated (1.000) and has beat better teams in the super bowl than Montana has. He's beat the greatest non super bowl winning team. He also has done it with less than Montana

Debate settled

 

[Bruins29]

Really because im pretty sure winning 100 percent of your games is better than 67 percent. I'm sure someone will get this confused that I think Montana is better than Brady some how though

Sure, if you consider that making a superbowl is not an accomplishment and losing in one is a huge negative. Dosent work that way in competitive sports though. Do you understand that?

Making a SB is an accomplishment. Sorry you cant grasp that concept. Your side of this is sorta saying going one and done is better than losing in the superbowl because at least the one and done guy diddnt lose in the superbowl.

 

[fightingirish595]

Using SB record dosnt work though. Both won 4...period. If TB only had 3 all the Montana homers and Brady haters may have had a case. It ended with 49.

The fact that TB made it to two more Superbowls just strengthens the simple logical argument that TB did more.

Its not even debatable. The only reason it keeps coming up are people trolling for reactions and Montana homers and Brady haters who cant deal with reality.

I don't look at Super Bowl losses. They neither help or hurt you. However when you go to 4 and win all 4 and don't throw a pick, and throw 16 TDs, that in my opinion puts you above everyone else in the category of super bowl performance. I think Montana is clearly the best Super Bowl performer ever but that doesn't make him the GOAT

 

[fightingirish595]

Sure, if you consider that making a superbowl is not an accomplishment and losing in one is a huge negative. Dosent work that way in competitive sports though. Do you understand that?

Making a SB is an accomplishment. Sorry you cant grasp that concept. Your side of this is sorta saying going one and done is better than losing in the superbowl because at least the one and done guy diddnt lose in the superbowl.

Making a Super Bowl is an accomplishment. Just because I think losing one doesn't boost your legacy doesn't mean I don't. You have your opinion I have mine

 

[sb1]

Not really. No one is saying Joe Montana is better than Tom brady because of that alone. The comparison is between two iconic players. Probably the top 2 at their position. Their using the Super Bowl performance and record as a deciding factor. Your comparison doesn't make much sense to me

Except it's not a sensible deciding factor to use.

If Montana's 4-0 > Brady's 4-2 then why isn't Dilfer's 1-0 > Favre's 1-1?

 

[fightingirish595]

Except it's not a sensible deciding factor to use.

If Montana's 4-0 > Brady's 4-2 then why isn't Dilfer's 1-0 > Favre's 1-1?

Dilfers record of 1-0 is technically better. But that doesn't make him better than those guys. Comparing them is absurd. Montana and Brady are the best of their eras. Way more comparable players.

 

[sb1]

Dilfers record of 1-0 is technically better. But that doesn't make him better than those guys. Comparing them is absurd. Montana and Brady are the best of their eras. Way more comparable players.

You're right, it doesn't. It's a silly argument to use, plus of course there's the whole thing that wins and losses are a team stat much more than a QB stat.

It's impossible to objectively compare QBs in different eras of the sport. It's even hard to compare Brady himself pre-Polian-rules changes to today.

 

[fightingirish595]

You're right, it doesn't. It's a silly argument to use, plus of course there's the whole thing that wins and losses are a team stat much more than a QB stat.

It's impossible to objectively compare QBs in different eras of the sport. It's even hard to compare Brady himself pre-Polian-rules changes to today.

I couldn't agree more

 

[richie021501]

I don't look at Super Bowl losses. They neither help or hurt you. However when you go to 4 and win all 4 and don't throw a pick, and throw 16 TDs, that in my opinion puts you above everyone else in the category of super bowl performance. I think Montana is clearly the best Super Bowl performer ever but that doesn't make him the GOAT

I agree that Montana was the best super bowl QB ever and I also agree that he's not the GOAT, although he certainly has an argument. I'll take 4-2 over 4-0 in the super bowl any day. Brady has a better playoff win % meaning he got further in the playoffs more often then Montana. I don't see why super bowl win % should have any more weight than divisional round or conference championship game win %. We never look at a QB and say he was great because he won all his divisional round games or all his AFC/NFC championship games so why should we do it with the super bowl?

 

[fightingirish595]

I think people have to realize that Super Bowl appearances vs Super Bowl record are two different things. 6 is better than 4 for sure but that doesn't make 4-2 better than 4-0 in my opinion. Like I said. 2 different stats

 

[bigballas]

if this wasn't dropped, this narrative is over about how clutch montana was in the big game.

 

[Kargetina]

People who support Montana's 4-0 argument have really not thought this through at all.

The goal every season is to win the SB which is the ultimate price, being a finalist is second best, losing in a conference final a Top 4 team, etc...

Let's say the SB is a 100 points as far as success goes.
Finalist 75
Conference final 50
Division game 25
Wild Card 10
Not making the playoffs 0

Having 4 SB wins + 2 SB loses>>>>Having 4 SB wins + any other loss, whether it's a conference final or a one and done.

Brady and his team made it further in 2007/2011 than any other Montana team, disregarding their 4 SB titles.

They weren't the best in those years, they were second best. Montana and his team in the seasons they didn't win the SB, were never second best. Usually one and done.

 

[fightingirish595]

I agree that Montana was the best super bowl QB ever and I also agree that he's not the GOAT, although he certainly has an argument. I'll take 4-2 over 4-0 in the super bowl any day. Brady has a better playoff win % meaning he got further in the playoffs more often then Montana. I don't see why super bowl win % should have any more weight than divisional round or conference championship game win %. We never look at a QB and say he was great because he won all his divisional round games or all his AFC/NFC championship games so why should we do it with the super bowl?

Because it's become the biggest sporting event in this country. The same thing is done in pretty much all sports too. Going undefeated and winning the most rings at your position, the most important position is a huge real. And yeah he has more playoff wins and a better percentage but that's a different stat. That's another stat that helps Brady in the debate.

 

[richie021501]

But you can't get to that big sporting event if you don't win the rounds prior to that. You don't bring it in the divisional round or conference championship then your going home without a ring just like the super bowl. The super bowl is no more important than the other playoff games. Im sorry, but I just don't see any relevance of super bowl record

 

[Pats1989]

Brady has gotten to more SB's. Thus it would open the door to have more losses vs if he just went to 4.

Brady has gone to 11 CCG vs Montana's 7.

There was no game winning TD pass ( Ala Montana to Taylor) with 35 seconds left. There was no absolute dismantling ( SB 24) of a SB opponent. Basically some pundits may hold Vinatieri's GW kicks against Brady in a weird way. They may hold it against Brady has thrown a pick in the SB while Joe hasn't.

My take? I don't agree with the "pundits". A.V. Doesn't kick any game winners if Brady doesn't shred the Rams and Panthers in those final drives.

Brady played in six SB's. Obviously he will have a few more picks than a guy who played in four.

It took a once in a billion catch for Brady to lose SB # 1. It took an amazing sideline catch for Brady to lose SB #2. That's the "difference" between T.B. not being "perfect" and Joe being "perfect".

In the end, we all know who the goat is. We know he won SB's with Patton, Redman, Smith, Branch, Troy Brown ( No disrespect..was never "great"). All that matters to me is we've been blessed to watch brilliance for 18 years ( Will be minimum 18 years when T.B retires).