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

richie021501 said:

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.

Click to expand...

QuantumMechanic said:

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.

Click to expand...

richie021501 said:

Lol you can't win it but you can lose your shot at it so it's just as important. Just because it's not the last game doesn't mean it's less important. But hey like you said we can agree to disagree

Click to expand...

fightingirish595 said:

For the reason you stated it's more important: you can be eliminated and lose your shot at a ring in any of the games, but there's only one game you can actually win it in. i think each round the games slightly increase in importance. Obviously this doesn't mean the other games aren't important. Nearly all the games are important. Hell I'd say being 14-1 going into the last game of the season is an important game even if you clinched home field

Click to expand...

fightingirish595 said:

But you cant win a super bowl in the nfc championship. Brady and montana have the same amount of rings. When you play in that game 4 times and dont lose or throw an INT, something no one else at the position has done, Thats the greatest thing that has been done in that game. You can disagree with that if you want. Yeah I think 4-0 is better than 4-2 but that does not mean I think the losses hurt Bradys legacy. I dont.

Click to expand...

richie021501 said:

I'm sure threads have been made on this before but, hey, I'm new here and have never seen this discussed personally.

Whenever the whole Brady vs Montana thing comes up, Montana supporters always bring up the fact that he was undefeated in Super Bowls. I, for the life of me, have never understood this argument. I think Brady is the GOAT but there is certainly an argument for Montana. If someone wants to bring up the fact that he never threw an int in the super bowl then fine, that's a valid argument. But this whole undefeated in super bowls argument makes no sense. Why is losing a super bowl a knock against you? No player wins the super bowl every year, there should be no shame in finishing in 2nd a couple of years as opposed to 3rd, 4th, or worse, which Montana did 7 times in his career.

People who bring that up are basically saying that it would have been better for Brady to lose in the AFC title game those 2 years he lost to the Giants. That is ludicrous to me and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Why should we hold it against brady that he lost the super bowl twice but not hold against Montana all the times he lost in the earlier rounds? I'd take a 4-2 record over a 4-10 record any day. Hell, I'd take a 4-100 record, over a 4-0 record any day.

Click to expand...

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...

richie021501 said:

I'm sure threads have been made on this before but, hey, I'm new here and have never seen this discussed personally.

Whenever the whole Brady vs Montana thing comes up, Montana supporters always bring up the fact that he was undefeated in Super Bowls. I, for the life of me, have never understood this argument. I think Brady is the GOAT but there is certainly an argument for Montana. If someone wants to bring up the fact that he never threw an int in the super bowl then fine, that's a valid argument. But this whole undefeated in super bowls argument makes no sense. Why is losing a super bowl a knock against you? No player wins the super bowl every year, there should be no shame in finishing in 2nd a couple of years as opposed to 3rd, 4th, or worse, which Montana did 7 times in his career.

People who bring that up are basically saying that it would have been better for Brady to lose in the AFC title game those 2 years he lost to the Giants. That is ludicrous to me and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Why should we hold it against brady that he lost the super bowl twice but not hold against Montana all the times he lost in the earlier rounds? I'd take a 4-2 record over a 4-10 record any day. Hell, I'd take a 4-100 record, over a 4-0 record any day.

Click to expand...

Actual Pats Fan said:

It's NOT measured in number of Super Bowls. Joe was great. He'd have been in 2-3 more if SF hadn't stupidly chosen Young over him.

Click to expand...

Ranxroc said:

I'm really struggling to understand the premise of what you're trying to actually convey... surely you do realize you must win the NFC championship game just to advance to said Super Bowl. So taking that into account it would be better just to compare playoff records, instead of just just tunneling in on just the Super Bowl, however if you're trying to argue that Montana is the best performer within the Super Bowl then that is completely different.

Click to expand...