Debunking Brady being "carried" to Super Bowls by his defense

[venecol]

@Ian do you seriously believe that he believes half the crap he's saying? There's been entire threads of a dozen ppl refuting every single one of his claims about Brady v. Montana, and he just moves the goal posts or comes back w/ a completely ridiculous argument. He's not interested in an honest debate. He's trolling and laughing all the way from his basement. Guy is a joke. You're wasting your time if you think you'll convince him of anything. That's not his goal. He's bragged about it.

 

[venecol]

I actually watched that movie for the first time the other night (the Sandlot) - thought I had seen it years ago but apparently not, even though I knew the saying, like the rest of the world. Highly recommend it if you haven’t seen it. Great movie and obviously a classic. (It’s on Disney+)

Watched it many times (kids ).

 

[Ian]

@Ian do you seriously believe that he believes half the crap he's saying? There's been entire threads of a dozen ppl refuting every single one of his claims about Brady v. Montana, and he just moves the goal posts or comes back w/ a completely ridiculous argument. He's not interested in an honest debate. He's trolling and laughing all the way from his basement. Guy is a joke. You're wasting your time if you think you'll convince him of anything. That's not his goal. He's bragged about it.

I'm aware. But I do believe dismissing one of the best eras we've ever seen from a player is silly and Brady essentially had to double Montana's number to get there. Had that one two years ago ended differently and he was 6-4, I'm sure the rhetoric would be different with everyone. But 7-3 solidified it and if I was Brady, I would have stayed retired. He's got nothing left to prove and I don't know if he'll have enough help around him through 17 games to win another this year.

 

[venecol]

I'm aware. But I do believe dismissing one of the best eras we've ever seen from a player is silly and Brady essentially had to double Montana's number to get there. Had that one two years ago ended differently and he was 6-4, I'm sure the rhetoric would be different with everyone. But 7-3 solidified it and if I was Brady, I would have stayed retired. He's got nothing left to prove and I don't know if he'll have enough help around him through 17 games to win another this year.

Agree. Pretty much everyone agrees incl. haters (Sharpe, Kellerman, Sims, even Joe Montana) with the exception of Rob Parker & Timmy12.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Do you really believe that Montana would have been perfect if he played in six more of them? Obviously, there’s no way to know, but either way, he never made it to that many. So given that Brady’s won almost twice as many and been to more than double the amount, I feel like that’s a wash, so the edge would still have to go to Brady overall

Montana was incredibly injury prone. He even missed the 1991 and 1992 seasons after that devastating hit from Leonard Marshall in the 1990 NFCCG. With that said, IF he stayed healthy, played for 23 years, and had Walsh (or Belichick) as his coach for that period, he probably would have won 7 super bowls. He won 4 in 13 years as starter (4 in 11 as a Niner)...it's not unreasonable to think he could win 3 more in the remaining 7 years.

 

[gobesmug]

I'm aware. But I do believe dismissing one of the best eras we've ever seen from a player is silly and Brady essentially had to double Montana's number to get there. Had that one two years ago ended differently and he was 6-4, I'm sure the rhetoric would be different with everyone. But 7-3 solidified it and if I was Brady, I would have stayed retired. He's got nothing left to prove and I don't know if he'll have enough help around him through 17 games to win another this year.

What's crazy is the first superbowl against the Giants, he was multiple dropped game winning Ints, a miracle catch, plus a perfectly played defensive deflection on a would be 80 yard game winning pass to Moss to complete the perfect season.

Second superbowl against the Giants, was a game winning dropped pass by Welker plus another fluke completion.

The Eagles took 2 TDs that would have been incompletions had the NFL decided not to change the rules midgame, and an incredible strip sack.

The Pats could easily be 8-0 in the superbowl with Brady and Belicheck.

Just goes to show how incredibly difficult it is to win a superbowl and highlights the incredible job the duo did

 

[gobesmug]

Montana was incredibly injury prone. He even missed the 1991 and 1992 seasons after that devastating hit from Leonard Marshall in the 1990 NFCCG. With that said, IF he stayed healthy, played for 23 years, and had Walsh (or Belichick) as his coach for that period, he probably would have won 7 super bowls. He won 4 in 13 years as starter (4 in 11 as a Niner)...it's not unreasonable to think he could win 3 more in the remaining 7 years.

If you want to play the "if" game, if a few other things go right, injuries, players going crazy, players catching balls they should have caught, etc. the Pats and Brady would have over 10 superbowl wins plus a perfect season.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Agree. Pretty much everyone agrees incl. haters (Sharpe, Kellerman, Sims, even Joe Montana) with the exception of Rob Parker & Timmy12.

View attachment 42383

 

[Ian]

Montana was incredibly injury prone. He even missed the 1991 and 1992 seasons after that devastating hit from Leonard Marshall in the 1990 NFCCG. With that said, IF he stayed healthy, played for 23 years, and had Walsh (or Belichick) as his coach for that period, he probably would have won 7 super bowls. He won 4 in 13 years as starter (4 in 11 as a Niner)...it's not unreasonable to think he could win 3 more in the remaining 7 years.

But he didn't

 

[gobesmug]

If Montana was throwing to Welker instead of Dwight Clarke he would be 3-1 in the superbowl

 

[SHOWTIME15]

But he didn't

Sure, but we are not debating longevity here, where Brady has a major advantage. We are debating quality vs quantity in super bowls.

 

[Ian]

Montana was incredibly injury prone. He even missed the 1991 and 1992 seasons after that devastating hit from Leonard Marshall in the 1990 NFCCG. With that said, IF he stayed healthy, played for 23 years, and had Walsh (or Belichick) as his coach for that period, he probably would have won 7 super bowls. He won 4 in 13 years as starter (4 in 11 as a Niner)...it's not unreasonable to think he could win 3 more in the remaining 7 years.

LOL, but again, not to take anything away from Montana. At the same time, it took Brady getting to seven Super Bowl victories before the pundits finally gave him his due. So again, he had to almost double Montana's victories to truly finally earn the GOAT status among the critics who were split with him.

 

[Ian]

Sure, but we are not debating longevity here, where Brady has a major advantage. We are debating quality vs quantity in super bowls.

And regardless, if you look at the talent (save for that one year in 2007) that Montana had on offense vs Brady, it's not even close and that played a major, major factor in Brady's total not being even higher, especially earlier in his career after he won those first three. Had he not been lost for the season in 2008, I think most of us felt like he would have gotten another and been 4-1 at that point. Moss' dropoff started the season after that.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

LOL, but again, not to take anything away from Montana. At the same time, it took Brady getting to seven Super Bowl victories before the pundits finally gave him his due. So again, he had to almost double Montana's victories to truly finally earn the GOAT status among the critics who were split with him.

I know, I was at that game. 10th row - end zone. I witnessed James White's game winning touchdown right in front of me. And I'm not arguing that Brady isn't the GOAT. I am arguing merely about quality of super bowl performances, where I do think Montana has the edge.

 

[Ring 6]

But he didn't

Nothing is less legitimate than awarding the equivalent of a championship on “well he could have”.
Winning a championship is earned on the field making plays not by what people think.

 

[Ian]

Sure, but we are not debating longevity here, where Brady has a major advantage. We are debating quality vs quantity in super bowls.

And the last point I'll make is this. Imagine Brady having someone like Rice in his prime for much of the early part of his career the way Montana did. I mean, the closest you can say is Moss and he only had him at his best for essentially one season.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Nothing is less legitimate than awarding the equivalent of a championship on “well he could have”.
Winning a championship is earned on the field making plays not by what people think.

We see this time and time again on this board - "Well, Brady would be 9-0 in super bowls if it weren't for David Tyree or Manningham, etc"

 

[SHOWTIME15]

And the last point I'll make is this. Imagine Brady having someone like Rice in his prime for much of the early part of his career the way Montana did. I mean, the closest you can say is Moss and he only had him at his best for essentially one season.

Gronk? From 2010-2017 Brady was at his prime with the Patriots. Then again he has him in Tampa.

 

[Ring 6]

We see this time and time again on this board - "Well, Brady would be 9-0 in super bowls if it weren't for David Tyree or Manningham, etc"

The second least legitimate argument is “someone said something on this board”.

 

[Ian]

Gronk? From 2010-2017 Brady was at his prime with the Patriots. Then again he has him in Tampa.

He didn't have Gronk at his best during a lot of that. Gronk got hurt quite a bit, including prior to one of those Super Bowls that you like to continually point out they lost. When he was healthy - or healthy enough - that was when they finally won them - and the one down Tampa. That was only over the span of a few seasons - and he also sat one of those out.