Montana's perfect Super Bowls in perspective

[eom]

Who said having an extra 100M in payroll would not be an advantage?

there was one guy taking the side that the capped era isn't a hindrance to dynasty building , who threw out some line about $$ not always being an advantage because it's not always spent wisely.
the fact is, of course, that it's ALWAYS an advantage, but sometimes an advantage can be squandered, just like if I spotted you 2 td and you end up beating me.

 

[Deus Irae]

but, see, that's not actually true.
what's true is that if the pats wanted to break the bank on dez bryant or calvin johnson, when they hit the market, they could pay top dollar and get these great receivers --- I'm assuming that's what you're talking about.

No....

I was pointing to an argument that could be made about it being easier to win in the modern era, as long as you've got a top level QB.

 

[Bruins29]

there was one guy taking the side that the capped era isn't a hindrance to dynasty building , who threw out some line about $$ not always being an advantage because it's not always spent wisely.
the fact is, of course, that it's ALWAYS an advantage, but sometimes an advantage can be squandered, just like if I spotted you 2 td and you end up beating me.

Was it BobDigital? That sounds like something ridiculous that he would say because it destroys his viewpoint.

 

[eom]

Was it BobDigital? That sounds like something ridiculous that he would say because it destroys his viewpoint.

yeah, it was that one guy I was going back and forth with --- I think that was probably his name

I assume he's thinking of these baseball teams that just couldn't go out and buy championships, even though they spent the money, but it was still always a tremendous advantage.
on the whole, I think I'd probably rather see the pats get an extra 100m to spend than a football that was a pound light -- I feel we got kinda short sticked on that one.

 

[Bruins29]

I assume he's thinking .

misnomer

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

I would call all of those teams dynasties.
In addition to the 3 SB wins the Raiders had a great run from the mid 60s to mid 80s. They and Pittsburgh are the closest to the current Pats in terms of winning over a period of time.
The Redskins were great for most of their 11 year run in the 70s to 80s and those 3 titles gives them a seat at the dynasty table.

I would too, I was just applying his definition. I'd add that you also had periods where MIA and DAL were dominant though they didn't win 3.

 

[1960Pats]

I would too, I was just applying his definition. I'd add that you also had periods where MIA and DAL were dominant though they didn't win 3.

Miami should have won more. They had Dan Marino for 12 years without winning.

 

[1960Pats]

No....

I was pointing to an argument that could be made about it being easier to win in the modern era, as long as you've got a top level QB.

It's certainly easier to make the playoffs now. All any team needs to do is beat out three division opponents to get there.

 

[libra957]

When the wins are even, more trips is a good thing.

If 2-3 is better than 2-0, As in Elway is better than Eli, than 4-0 vs 4-2 is a no brainer, Brady is better than Montana.