Brady and Montana Factually

[Sivy]

My assumption that Patriot's fans jumped on the bandwagon in 2001 is not such an assumption when you read ignorant statements like the above comment - that "winning 3 Super Bowls in 4 years is not a fluke. It's never been done before".

Not even 10 years before - the Cowboys won Super Bowls in 92, 93 and 95.

As far as SPYGATE goes - no one will ever know how much of an impact it had. There is one thing however, that cannot be denied. In Super Bowl XLII, the Giants got a read on the Patriots offensive line calls - you can hear them talking about it in the NFL Films Super Bowl Highlight Recap of the game. No one can deny they key to the Giants win of that game was the pass rush of the Giants owning the Patriots pass blocking. Knowing what was coming helped New York gain an edge.

It's a real mark of a bandwagon group of fans when someone who pulls for another team knows more about your own teams history than your own fan base.

who..in the blue hell, are you?

 

[FSF]

there's another aspect the think about: Those Niners teams were loaded with Hall of Famers. for a team that has Been at the top of the league for so long, the Patriots will send very few to Canton. Says a lot about BBs coaching and TFBs level of play.

Loaded with Hall of Famers? Really?

Here are the 49ers who have made the Hall of Fame: Montana, Lott, Dean, Rice, Walsh, Young and Sanders.

The most Hall of Famers that were ever a part of a 49ers team at once was 4. And it's a safe bet to say that one of those Hall of Famers - Steve Young - was not much of a contributor to the 88 and 89 teams.

The 1960s Packers and 1970s Steelers were teams "loaded" with Hall of Famers.
The Packers won 5 NFL Championships and the final two coincided with the first two Super Bowls. 8 Members were part of all 5 with another 3 that were part of at least 2 championships.
The Steelers won 4 Super Bowls. 10 Members were part of all 4 Super Bowls.

In addition, both teams are short changed by one player in Jerry Kramer and LC Greenwood.

The Patriots will have only 2 Hall of Famers from their championship teams - Brady and Belichick.

 

[FSF]

who..in the blue hell, are you?

I'm the guy who doesn't need to use the catch phrases of a former pro wrestler to assist a bunch of fans who didn't know that pro football existed in the 20th century.

Rather than ask "who" I am, read and maybe you'll learn something.

 

[FSF]

Pats 74, I will have to agree with you 100%, i think a lot of people and some in the media, think that football championships started with SB 1, and somehow SB wins are more "official" that NFL Championships . . . we both know that is not true and a NFL Championship pre Merger is just as valuable as any SB . . . of coarse those last four NFL Championships before the Merger (GB, GB, Balt, and Minn) kind of get lost in the shuffle . . .

for me Graham, Starr, and Baugh are very high on my list, and I too have Starr ahead of TB and Montana . . . actually i have Baugh and Graham both ahead of Montana . . .

The NFL officially considers the NFL Championship at the same level as the NFC Championship - likewise the AFL Championship at the same level as the AFC Championship.

Hence - it is why each is called a Championship and a Trophy is awarded for each. The Lamar Hunt Trophy for the AFC and the George Halas Trophy is awarded for the NFC - which became effective in 1984.

The NFL Championship and the Super Bowl ARE different things. If you have any question to dispute that - ask the Baltimore Colts and Minnesota Vikings - who won the NFL Championship in 1968 and 1969 but lost the Super Bowl.

NFL Championships were championships that were awarded for a long time - not won in any championship game. When there was a championship game, there was no playoff - it was a meeting of the two best regular season records from two "conferences" and was played on a rotating home field advantage - not like the nuetral field Super Bowl site. In addition, ties were very common, but were thrown out of the equation in determining best record, so a team could win the regular season and play for the championship despite having a worse record than teams finishing above them.

There is a reason that the Super Bowl is held with more regard than the NFL Championship. The Patriots had to win 9 games vs. legitimate competition to win their 3 Super Bowls, the Browns had to win 5 games to win their 4 NFL Championships - with only 1 on the road.

 

[Guts]

I'm the guy who doesn't need to use the catch phrases of a former pro wrestler to assist a bunch of fans who didn't know that pro football existed in the 20th century.

Rather than ask "who" I am, read and maybe you'll learn something.

"Doesn't matter who you are..." Sorry had to haha

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Loaded with Hall of Famers? Really?

Here are the 49ers who have made the Hall of Fame: Montana, Lott, Dean, Rice, Walsh, Young and Sanders.

The most Hall of Famers that were ever a part of a 49ers team at once was 4. And it's a safe bet to say that one of those Hall of Famers - Steve Young - was not much of a contributor to the 88 and 89 teams.

The 1960s Packers and 1970s Steelers were teams "loaded" with Hall of Famers.
The Packers won 5 NFL Championships and the final two coincided with the first two Super Bowls. 8 Members were part of all 5 with another 3 that were part of at least 2 championships.
The Steelers won 4 Super Bowls. 10 Members were part of all 4 Super Bowls.

In addition, both teams are short changed by one player in Jerry Kramer and LC Greenwood.

The Patriots will have only 2 Hall of Famers from their championship teams - Brady and Belichick.

You're right on the facts about the 'niners. Frankly, I was surprised when I saw that Joe only overlapped with four, one of whom was his HC and another his successor. Even if the OP misspoke about the team being "loaded" with HOF'ers, I think it's fair to say that it was easier to keep a nucleus together before the cap and FA era.

As for how many HOF'ers the Pats will have, since none of us posting on this board will be in the room when that decision is made, I guess one person's opinion is as good as another's.

I'm fairly confident that Adam Vinatieri will end up in Canton; the NFL hasn't admitted a Placekicker since Jan Stenerud and I think if they're ever going to admit another, it will be Vinatieri. His stats warrant it and, while there's a reasonable consensus that the kick he made to tie the snowbowl was the greatest kick under playoff pressure in the history of the NFL, following that act with two SB-winning kicks is also a powerful argument. Randy Moss will probably go there, but he was not a member of any of their championship teams and will always be recognized more for his days in Minnesota I guess.

I wouldn't count out Bruschi and Rodney; it could end up as the luck of the draw for either or both of them, but they are taking the tried and true path of building relationships with voters and burnishing their images via highly visible Network roles. Worked for Deion and I'd bet it will work for Cowher and Dungy as well, even if they never coach another day.

Bob Kraft too has a lot of friends in the right places and is the poster boy for franchise value creation among NFL owners, when that is defined as taking a moribund franchise and turning it into a billion dollar enterprise. So, I could see him making it as a Contributor in the distant future. Being widely credited with saving the CBA this year won't hurt either.

But, predicting how the 44 "electors" will vote is always difficult, so you might be right.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I'm the guy who doesn't need to use the catch phrases of a former pro wrestler to assist a bunch of fans who didn't know that pro football existed in the 20th century.

Rather than ask "who" I am, read and maybe you'll learn something.

Welcome to the Board.

Now, relax.

People on this board are always open to good arguments and well-presented data. He was probably responding to your tone. No need to take an attitude. If you consistently know what you're saying, people will respond well. If you come off like a jerk, what you are confident are brilliant comments will just be ignored.

You're off to a good start with your information and knowledge...don't wreck it for yourself. There are a lot of very knowledgeable folks here who enjoy mixing it up; most of us just have little time for prima donnas.

And, yes, some aren't as knowledgeable and some actually misspeak at times. So lighten up.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The NFL officially considers the NFL Championship at the same level as the NFC Championship - likewise the AFL Championship at the same level as the AFC Championship.

Hence - it is why each is called a Championship and a Trophy is awarded for each. The Lamar Hunt Trophy for the AFC and the George Halas Trophy is awarded for the NFC - which became effective in 1984.

The NFL Championship and the Super Bowl ARE different things. If you have any question to dispute that - ask the Baltimore Colts and Minnesota Vikings - who won the NFL Championship in 1968 and 1969 but lost the Super Bowl.

NFL Championships were championships that were awarded for a long time - not won in any championship game. When there was a championship game, there was no playoff - it was a meeting of the two best regular season records from two "conferences" and was played on a rotating home field advantage - not like the nuetral field Super Bowl site. In addition, ties were very common, but were thrown out of the equation in determining best record, so a team could win the regular season and play for the championship despite having a worse record than teams finishing above them.

There is a reason that the Super Bowl is held with more regard than the NFL Championship. The Patriots had to win 9 games vs. legitimate competition to win their 3 Super Bowls, the Browns had to win 5 games to win their 4 NFL Championships - with only 1 on the road.

Since 1933, the NFL has had a "League Championship Game" and it still has one "League Championship Game" (now, AKA the Super Bowl). Those games were played between the winner of the "Eastern/American Division Conference" and the "Western/National Division Conference." I don't think you could cite any NFL source to support your statement that the "NFL officially considers the NFL Championship at the same level as the NFC Championship." The NFC Championship is a conference championship; the NFL Championship is a League Championship, contested today, as it has always been, between the winners of the League's two conferences. Those are two different things.

The fact that the League is larger now after the merger and thus has a playoff system to crown its separate Conference champions with appropriate trophies before it crowns its League champion, doesn't diminish in any way the value of League Championships before the current system went into place.

It seems arbitrary and more than a little unfair to say, for example, that Vince Lombardi's three NFL championships prior to 1966 were worth less than his two NFL Championships in the SB era.

He still had to beat the best that Professional Football in the US had to offer to earn them.

I was doing a little research the other day and discovered that there were no less than 15 future Hall of Fame players on the field or on the sidelines in the 1960 NFL Championship game between the Eagles and the Packers... Lombardi's only loss in a League Championship game.

Whatever the path to that game, a team still had to beat the best to win the title. I don't think that any Super Bowl has had as many HOF players involved as that game. Would you want to tell Chuck Bednarik and Paul Hornung that that game wasn't as great a test of the best as a ring won by, say, Trent Dilfer? Even in their old age, I don't think I'd want to be within swinging distance of either Bednarik or Hornung if I tried to make that argument.

Yes, the games were played at alternating home stadiums and yes the playoff run was shorter, but in the end it was still the best against the best and that is what a League Championship is and that is what makes it impossible, in my opinion, to define one era's in lesser terms than another's.

Was the 1958 game between the Colts and Giants any the less a test of greatness because it was played in New York by rotation and the two teams had "only" come out first in smaller Conferences?

Would you seriously have tried to tell Johnny Unitas or Raymond Berry or Frank Gifford or Sam Huff or any of the 17 (!) future Hall of Famers who were on the field or sidelines that day that it wasn't as significant a contest because it fell in 1958 and not 1968? Has any team in the SB era won a game when 17 HOF'ers were on the field or sidelines?

The 1958 "NFL Championship Game" (resolved in OT) isn't called "The Greatest Game Ever Played" for nothing. But, using your logic, you would put any of the Super Bowl era Championships over it because.... I don't think you even want to try to make that kind of argument and if you do, I doubt you'd want to make it in front of any of the guys who left their blood and tears on the field that day.

In baseball, too, the path to a ring has gotten longer and more complex. For many years there were two leagues of eight teams, barnstorming the country for 154 games. In the end the World Series was contested without a playoff. Does that diminish any of those other championships? Would you tell Ruth or Cobb that their championships were worth less?

I guess we disagree.