Great point on Brady-Montana, SB's -PFW

[nowayback]

Whats better, if Brady wins 4th with 2 losses or Montana 4-0

arnt 2 losses better then not even making it to SB? Montana just lost sooner.


if Montana only played 4 yrs and was 4-0 yes. But thats not the case.

 

[Wheelman]

SB 4-2 4-0
CG 6-1 4-3
DR 7-2 7-2
WC 2-1 1-2

It's pretty obvious Brady is superior statistically if Brady wins it all this season. Mediots like to ignore the fact that Brady will be 6-1 vs Joe Cool's 4-3 in the championship game. No disrespect to Joe Cool. I think comparing two people from different era's is a bunch of horse****. But statistically Brady will be superior.

 

[Fencer]

Let us not count our chickens before they have hatched, nor skin the bear we haven't caught yet.

 

[ausbacker]

4-2 is better than 4-0. Clearly, the winning percentage isn't the same but competing for the opportunity to win the ultimate prize has to be view and considered favorable.

 

[nabwong]

OT but I didn't want to make another thread. It's interesting to me that most of this conversation is about Brady-Montana. I have rarely seen Manning-Montana comparisons. I don't know if it's because i'm just following patriots news and not colts/denver. But from a national media standpoint, I don't see much Manning-Montana. More Manning-Favre

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Let us not count our chickens before they have hatched, nor skin the bear we haven't caught yet.

Agreed, but the OP posted a hypothetical and I'm ok with it, but this will be one of the more competitive SB journeys (by both AFC/NFC) we've seen in a few years.

And should you have said

Let us not count our chickens before they have hatched, nor pluck the raven we haven't caught yet.

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

SB 4-2 4-0
CG 6-1 4-3
DR 7-2 7-2
WC 2-1 1-2

It's pretty obvious Brady is superior statistically if Brady wins it all this season. Mediots like to ignore the fact that Brady will be 6-1 vs Joe Cool's 4-3 in the championship game. No disrespect to Joe Cool. I think comparing two people from different era's is a bunch of horse****. But statistically Brady will be superior.

In researching a post I wrote that was basically the same in content to yours, I was surprised to see that Montana had lead the Chiefs to the AFCC game once. Upon reflection, it seemed to me like such an accomplishment that he doesn't deserve any demerits for it.

 

[Fencer]

LOL.

The "skin the bear" thing is a Russian saying about divvying up spoils. I once made a Russian guy happy by dropping it on him.

 

[SVN]

Let us not count our chickens before they have hatched, nor skin the bear we haven't caught yet.

Yeah, remember how everyone was saying manning will be greatest of all time if he won the NO SB and then didnt ?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

The numbers are about the same, except for 2 more NFCCG losses for Montana than Brady lost AFCCG.

A pertinent part of comparing across eras: Montana's was an era of NFC dominance. If you won the NFC, you pretty much had done it.

During Brady's career, the Pats cemented a few years of AFC dominance begun by Denver and Baltimore, but with no dynasty aspect. Still, between the Pats' super bowl wins, there was the Tampa dominance of Oakland... and soon after the Pats departed the throne we had GB and NO (not to mention Seattle, except for the refs.)

From 81-96 (82-97 actually) there was a grand total of one AFC SB winner, the Los Angeles Raiders. San Fran, Dallas, Washington, and the NYG accounted for 13 NFC wins.

So really, Joe Cool never lost a super bowl? That's your big stumping points? Fine. Tom Brady's Pats have never lost against a Division II NCAA team.

Note: Um, this is assuming a Brady SB win this year, per the entire thread.

 

[Yehoodi]

Yeah, remember how everyone was saying manning will be greatest of all time if he won the NO SB and then didnt ?

what would you rather talk about the off season? ? ? we are fans and that what we do . . . we predict the game don't we? . . so why not talk about what would happen if your prediction is right . . .

look the AFFCG and SB are directly in front of us and we will be watching the SB in two weeks and two days whether pats are in or not . . .and given that we are of the final four there is nothing wrong with a little dreaming and prediction . . .

 

[Kingasaurus]

A pertinent part of comparing across eras: Montana's was an era of NFC dominance. If you won the NFC, you pretty much had done it.

I agree, sort of.

The NFC DID win 13 straight, yes. But only two of the Niners SB wins were easy games. The other two were close calls against Cincinnati.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

First it's guys saying the Pats aren't a dynasty because of three close SB wins... then it's saying the 49ers/NFC weren't dominant because some of the wins were close... :confused2:

I guess we're gonna need Aikman at the beginning/Elway at the end (2 more SBs) to beat Joe Cool.

Hey while I was looking for the "confused guy" emoticon I found JJ Watt :nono:

 

[JoeSixPat]

4-2 is better than 4-0. Clearly, the winning percentage isn't the same but competing for the opportunity to win the ultimate prize has to be view and considered favorable.

That makes logical sense but people can't seem to grasp it.

Faulting Brady for going 4-2 instead of 4-0 is penalizing him for taking his team to the Super Bowl an additional two times. It's giving extra credit to Montana for losing before then.

But people look at it as the fact that Montana never lost a Super Bowl he made it to.

I'm willing to give that a good amount of credit too. He never lost in THE Big Game.

But when you factor in Brady, playing in an era of "parity" with a salary cap and free agency not to mention a different era in which players are bigger and faster - I would suggest that Brady has a case to make as GOAT

I don't think the public would ever accept that until Brady has 5

 

[Patnut]

Well said gents.

 

[PatriotsReign]

The key to any conversation that compares a current player to one that played 30 years ago is the SALARY CAP.


There is absolutely no doubt what Brady has accomplished is far more difficult than what Montana did. Back then, teams could keep players together for years if they didn't mind spending the money.

 

[Kingasaurus]

First it's guys saying the Pats aren't a dynasty because of three close SB wins... then it's saying the 49ers/NFC weren't dominant because some of the wins were close... :confused2:

I never said any of that.

Yes, the NFC was dominant, but Montana had two kinds of Super Bowls, blowouts with insane statistics, and two close games where he needed to play well in the 4th quarter for them to win. Just because the 49ers were in the dominant conference at the time, doesn't mean winning four SB's was automatic just because they won the NFC Championship game 4 times.

Niners were behind against Cincy in the 4th quarter.

 

[Ivan]

I once made a Russian guy happy by dropping it on him.

While i can't say I am surprised this is way too much information.

 

[zoostation]

Whats better, if Brady wins 4th with 2 losses or Montana 4-0

arnt 2 losses better then not even making it to SB? Montana just lost sooner.


if Montana only played 4 yrs and was 4-0 yes. But thats not the case.

Ask me after the 4th win

 

[Bhelmet]

Every SB Montana won the Niners were CLEARLY the best team not only in the game, but the league. That has not been the case for the 6 SB's Brady has been to. He took 1 team to the SB that really had no business being there (last year)and he won one that we had no business winning (1st one) - at least according to the "experts". If I had to win a game - I want Brady, but if I cannot have him, I want Montana.