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

4-0 is better than 4-2 if you are comparing the standings in MLB or NBA, because at the end of the season both teams will have played the same number of games.

That logic fails when transferring to a debate over the best quarterback for multiple reasons.

First off at the end of a career each QB will have reached the championship a different number of times.

Secondly this means that whoever loses in the SB had a worse season than 30 other quarterbacks. Based on this rationale Case Keenum, Colin Kapernick, Ryan Fitzpatrick and Brock Osweiler all will have had a better year than whichever QB loses Sunday. That in itself should make this line of reasoning a huge enough fail that this so-called evidence is never again used. It completely omits all the other elimination games leading up to the SB; that number would be more useful.

Perhaps most importantly the use of these won-loss records omits the fact that pro football is the ultimate team sport. This is not tennis or bowling or golf. Winning and losing the Super Bowl is the cumulative effort of 45 players, a dozen coaches, and a score of front office personnel. Just because the QB is more important than the RG, it does not mean he is the sole influence in determining a win or a loss.


The use of these stats is low hanging fruit for lazy sports talk radio hosts and football columnists. Other than that the numbers are useless.

Pats1989 said:

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).

Click to expand...

Good points. Pundits do like to bring up Montana's game winning drive against Cincinnati. But Brady has 2 game winning drives that led to field goals. I would say 2 game winning field goal drives is about equal to 1 game winning TD drive. Plus Brady threw the game winner against the Seahawks, and what should have been the game winner against the Giants. Montana was overall the better super bowl QB but I'd give Brady the edge in terms of end of game heroics.

It's all they have in trying to not proclaim him the GOAT.

If your goal is to make it to the SB and win, then they have basically failed all but 4 times. However, Brady had 2 other chances, has 1 more and Montana never had any other chances and failed every other time. It's a matter of perspective.

richie021501 said:

Good points. Pundits


Good points. Pundits do like to bring up Montana's game winning drive against Cincinnati. But Brady has 2 game winning drives that led to field goals. I would say 2 game winning field goal drives is about equal to 1 game winning TD drive. Plus Brady threw the game winner against the Seahawks, and what should have been the game winner against the Giants. Montana was overall the better super bowl QB but I'd give Brady the edge in terms of end of game heroics.

Click to expand...

Yepp. Brady didn't play his best in SB losses. Yet he led his team down the field for the leads. Heck he wasn't at his best in SB 49....yet went crazy in the 4th Quarter when it mattered most. We can say that about Brady. Even when he's not at his best ( 2015 AFCCG), he always gives us a chance regardless.

This argument / debate is laughable at best. No one will deny Joe Montana's "greatness". However, let's analyze and dissect this point by point.


If Brady is 4-2 in SB's, and Montana is 4-0, well by my math, that means that Brady went to 2 (well now 3) MORE Super Bowls than Montana did. So, doing the math AGAIN, that tells me that Brady has 3 more conference championships, with the possibility of passing him up with 5 SB wins, than Montana has, in a time where the league is MUCH MORE competitive and balanced, and much harder to have repeated success, due to the league strenuously pushing for "parity".


Back in Montana's hey day, the NFCCG was the de-facto Super Bowl, as the AFC pretty much sucked. Also, back then, Montana was surrounded by all-pros at just about every position on offense and defense (especially at WR). Mickey Mouse or any "game manager QB" could have been successful back then, with that surrounding cast. Not to mention, back then, Golden Boy Montana did NOT have to worry about losing his all stars around him due to free agency and salary cap. Brady has had a constant revolving door of surrounding casts to adjust to, where Montana did not have to contend with that. Montana was NOT so great any more when he went to KC, and was no longer surrounded with all-pros around him. Yes, he may have been older at that time, but he was still YOUNGER than TB is now (almost 40) now. When Montana was 40, he was a distant memory, Brady is playing the best football in his career right now.


This should not even be an argument anymore, once TB got that 4th ring, this should have been settled. Should TB win on Sunday, and I think he will, especially if he gets the MVP, then this argument should NEVER be brought to the light of day ever again.

jmt57 said:

4-0 is better than 4-2 if you are comparing the standings in MLB or NBA, because at the end of the season both teams will have played the same number of games.

That logic fails when transferring to a debate over the best quarterback for multiple reasons.

First off at the end of a career each QB will have reached the championship a different number of times.

Secondly this means that whoever loses in the SB had a worse season than 30 other quarterbacks. Based on this rationale Case Keenum, Colin Kapernick, Ryan Fitzpatrick and Brock Osweiler all will have had a better year than whichever QB loses Sunday. That in itself should make this line of reasoning a huge enough fail that this so-called evidence is never again used. It completely omits all the other elimination games leading up to the SB; that number would be more useful.

Perhaps most importantly the use of these won-loss records omits the fact that pro football is the ultimate team sport. This is not tennis or bowling or golf. Winning and losing the Super Bowl is the cumulative effort of 45 players, a dozen coaches, and a score of front office personnel. Just because the QB is more important than the RG, it does not mean he is the sole influence in determining a win or a loss.


The use of these stats is low hanging fruit for lazy sports talk radio hosts and football columnists. Other than that the numbers are useless.

Click to expand...

Well said. I agree that winning can be a little overrated in terms of how it affects a player's legacy but if we're going to say that it's important then 4-2 should be better then 4-0.

Ethanga62890 said:

I personally think Unitas is the best QB ever. He changed the position forever. When you're talking about best ever it's a matter of splitting hairs and opinions. Especially across different eras. Brady is an all time great. Now that I think of it it was very cool to watch his transformation from the start of his career into a dominant force

Click to expand...

The problem with comparing anyone to Brady, even an all-time great like Johnny U, is the fact that TB12 has been playing at such a high level for so many years that it minimizes what other great QBs have accomplished.

There are three major things that I think separate Brady from the rest, and it could be because of the times we live in, but I don't think so;

His brain - I've never heard of another QB who can see as many things on the field, recognize them and know where the soft spot will be so quickly, especially with multiple route options with the receivers. He's the same with the OL assignments. He can recognize a mistake and know where the pressure might be coming from and will move in the pocket accordingly.

His work ethic - The kid works out like a maniac, both physically with two a day workouts for the entire off-season and mentally by studying film more than even Bill Belichick. I would add Ernie Adams to that but I'm not sure anyone studies as much of anything related to football as that guy.

His toughness - That's the one that surprises people the most, probably because of his looks. Over the years we've heard quite a lot about his toughness from opposing players. We've been seeing it in every game for a decade and a half too. He, like most QB's, knows that in order to get a pass off accurately he has to deliver the ball and take a hit. I can't recall ever seeing him do a chuck and duck on a pass, but he may have once or twice. No, make that once.

And to top it all off, he's as nice a young man off the field as he a QB on it. I've never seen anyone so polite and respectful over a 17 year career as this kid has been. The only athlete close around here has been Bobby Orr.

richie021501 said:

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

Click to expand...

I think the Super Bowl is clearly the biggest game. The other rounds are important obviously but only 2 teams make it to the Super Bowl. It's the biggest game of the year

fightingirish595 said:

I think the Super Bowl is clearly the biggest game. The other rounds are important obviously but only 2 teams make it to the Super Bowl. It's the biggest game of the year

Click to expand...

I disagree completely. Only 2 teams make it but those 2 teams can't make it unless they win the rounds before that.

fightingirish595 said:

I think the Super Bowl is clearly the biggest game. The other rounds are important obviously but only 2 teams make it to the Super Bowl. It's the biggest game of the year

Click to expand...

Therefore, if you got to 7 SBs you did better than if you got to 4. Correct?

Bruins29 said:

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

Click to expand...

The reality is that the game we're talking about, the SB, isn't a game that everyone gets to play in. It takes wins against other playoff teams just to get into the SB. Wouldn't you rather have Brady's playoff record than Montana's?

Pats1989 said:

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).

Click to expand...

Brady also won 3 SB's with a RB with the perfect name for the Pats, Pat Pass. East Boston's own Jermaine Wiggins got one too.

I used to get tired of the Brady/Montana 'debate' but now that Brady has blown him away I enjoy it much more. The numbers don't lie.

1960Pats said:

Therefore, if you got to 7 SBs you did better than if you got to 4. Correct?

Click to expand...

Yes 7 is better than 4 if we're talking appearances I said that. Appearances and your record are two different things

1960Pats said:

The reality is that the game we're talking about, the SB, isn't a game that everyone gets to play in. It takes wins against other playoff teams just to get into the SB. Wouldn't you rather have Brady's playoff record than Montana's?

Click to expand...

Obviously Brady's playoff record. He has more wins and a better win percentage

richie021501 said:

I disagree completely. Only 2 teams make it but those 2 teams can't make it unless they win the rounds before that.

Click to expand...

You can't win a superbowl by winning your conference championship. You can't win your conference championship by winning the divisional round. Each game has a different meaning. The further you go the more at stake for each game.

Edit: I forget exactly what you said before this. But I don't see how one can think playoff record/Super Bowl record matters but the other one doesn't. They both matter, not one or the other. Just making a point. I'm not sure whether you said Super Bowl record mattered or not

You can't win a superbowl by NOT winning your conference championship. Every NFCCG Montana lost is worse than a SB loss because it meant he couldn't even attempt to win the SB.

fightingirish595 said:

You can't win a superbowl by winning your conference championship. You can't win your conference championship by winning the divisional round. Each game has a different meaning. The further you go the more at stake for each game.

Edit: I forget exactly what you said before this. But I don't see how one can think playoff record/Super Bowl record matters but the other one doesn't. They both matter, not one or the other. Just making a point. I'm not sure whether you said Super Bowl record mattered or not

Click to expand...

I disagree once again. Playoff record matters while super bowl record doesn't because the super bowl is just 1 round within the playoffs. Why does super bowl record matters but not divisional or conference title round? There is no more at stake in the super bowl, in my eyes, then any other round. If you lose in the divisional round you go home, how can any game be bigger then that?

I don't think a player should be rewarded for being eliminated earlier in the playoffs more often then another player, that is contradictory to what sports is all about. You want to win as much as possible. Would Brady's legacy be better if he had lost in the AFC title game instead of to the Giants those 2 years? That's insane.

richie021501 said:

I disagree once again. Playoff record matters while super bowl record doesn't because the super bowl is just 1 round within the playoffs. Why does super bowl record matters but not divisional or conference title round? There is no more at stake in the super bowl, in my eyes, then any other round. If you lose in the divisional round you go home, how can any game be bigger then that?

I don't think a player should be rewarded for being eliminated earlier in the playoffs more often then another player, that is contradictory to what sports is all about. You want to win as much as possible. Would Brady's legacy be better if he had lost in the AFC title game instead of to the Giants those 2 years? That's insane.

Click to expand...

How is there not more at stake? You cant win a superbowl in the divisionl round. your record in the Title game only effects how many super bowls you went too. It has no effect on the amount of wins or losses in the superbowl, just what the two numbers add too. So yeah the further you go the more at stake.

richie021501 said:

I disagree once again. Playoff record matters while super bowl record doesn't because the super bowl is just 1 round within the playoffs. Why does super bowl record matters but not divisional or conference title round? There is no more at stake in the super bowl, in my eyes, then any other round. If you lose in the divisional round you go home, how can any game be bigger then that?

I don't think a player should be rewarded for being eliminated earlier in the playoffs more often then another player, that is contradictory to what sports is all about. You want to win as much as possible. Would Brady's legacy be better if he had lost in the AFC title game instead of to the Giants those 2 years? That's insane.

Click to expand...

richie021501 said:

I disagree once again. Playoff record matters while super bowl record doesn't because the super bowl is just 1 round within the playoffs. Why does super bowl record matters but not divisional or conference title round? There is no more at stake in the super bowl, in my eyes, then any other round. If you lose in the divisional round you go home, how can any game be bigger then that?

I don't think a player should be rewarded for being eliminated earlier in the playoffs more often then another player, that is contradictory to what sports is all about. You want to win as much as possible. Would Brady's legacy be better if he had lost in the AFC title game instead of to the Giants those 2 years? That's insane.

Click to expand...

To me superbowl losses dont hurt you. To some people they do. Bradys superbowl record would be dead even with Montanas if your hypothetical was reality. If the Pats won superbowl 42, He probably could have retired right there, and how woulve been the goat after breaking those records, being 4-0 in Superbowls, And having an undefeated season

fightingirish595 said:

How is there not more at stake? You cant win a superbowl in the divisionl round. your record in the Title game only effects how many super bowls you went too. It has no effect on the amount of wins or losses in the superbowl, just what the two numbers add too. So yeah the further you go the more at stake.

Click to expand...

Because you can't get to the super bowl if you don't win the divisional round. You can't win a super bowl in the divisional round but you can lose your shot at one. I don't see the super bowl as being worth more simply because it's the last game. Every playoff game is equally important. If you don't bring your A game in the other rounds your going home. It doesn't get any bigger then that.

EDIT: if you don't think super bowl losses hurt you then we are on the same page. That was the whole argument I was trying to make.