OT: Did the Bucs SB loss Break Patrick Mahomes?

[Fixit]

There are a lot of dimwitted people on this board, so let me help you out. MOntana was only the starter for 192 games, missing the 1991 and 1992 seasons due to Leonard Marshall's hit in 1990. 192 games is the equivalent of 12 seasons, so Montana was 4 for 12 (that's 33%). And super bowl wins are the only thing that matters. Who cares about 2nd place? Brady played 20 seasons and won 7 times, which is the equivalent of 35%. Looks like the same super bowl winning rate to me...

I like this logic. It allows you to remove one season where he played nine games, was meh individually, and went 3-6 ... and another where he played eight games, went 6-2, but was pretty bad.

 

[Dingleberry]

There are a lot of dimwitted people on this board, so let me help you out. MOntana was only the starter for 192 games, missing the 1991 and 1992 seasons due to Leonard Marshall's hit. 192 games is the equivalent of 12 seasons, so Montana was 4 for 12 (that's 33%). And super bowl wins are the only thing that matters. Who cares about 2nd place?

Surely 2000 and 2008 do not count for Brady then.

But we average games to determine seasons because Joe couldn't stay healthy in multiple seasons, not just 91 and 92? That is dimwitted. Isn't ability to stay healthy part of greatness? Did you really just say winning is all that matters and who cares about 2nd place? Um, ya, no shyt. That would be Brady.

Look, I appreciate your shtick and your dedication to it. It's cute in a re-tarded way. Carry on. Some other sucker like myself will go back and forth with you next.

I am going to try to recover emotionally from being called dimwitted by someone like you.

 

[PatsWSB47]

Sure, Brady has more accomplishments...

But here's another analogy - if you hire someone to do something, would you rather have the guy who averages 100% on all 4 of his attempts or the guy who averages 70% over the course of 10 attempts?

LMAO. Unfortunately the guy who was 100 percent 4 times needed to have more attempts if you need more than 4 projects completed. He didn't deliver. He was valuable but the guy who got 7 done was more valuable. Now please dont move the goalposts again.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

I like this logic. It allows you to remove one season where he played nine games, was meh individually, and went 3-6 ... and another where he played eight games, went 6-2, but was pretty bad.

He never went 6-2 in a season before getting pulled...if you are talking about 1986, he suffered a severe back injury that year that caused him to miss 7 weeks.

 

[PatsWSB47]

He's a moron.

No, come on now, he's just having an intelligent discussion.

 

[Fixit]

He never went 6-2 in a season before getting pulled...if you are talking about 1986, he suffered a severe back injury that year that caused him to miss 7 weeks. It wasn't because he was "pretty bad."

What are you even arguing right here? He threw 8 TD and 9 picks in the games he played. You're just eliminating seasons where you don't like the result. That's how weak your argument is.

Let's just eliminate Brady's 2009, then. He was recovering from an ACL injury.

 

[BobDigital]

I came to this thread to make another point (will in a minute,) and I thank you guys for putting away any twit still trying to carry old None-For-The-Thumb Montana's water.

Jesus H. Christmas.

It's ovah.

It goes Brady, Montana, 9 miles of ****, then the argument begins at number 3, at least in the even vaguely modern era. That was already the case when Brady played in NE. Just to put a damn bow on it, he then went to increase the distance between him and Montana by winning 7 (vs. 4) SBs, and doing it with a second team.

The difference was, Brady did not need to have the pond stocked for him at receiver/TE until his 40s. He was making guys like Givens and Patten significant receivers. There is a long list of guys who could ONLY produce playing with Brady.

I'm not part of the "Brady fan" contingent here, who aren't really Patriots fans. But I sure as hell can recognize the obvious, as can every other observer who even watches football: Brady = GOAT. full stop.

By the way, whoever the 9ers fan is claiming there's still an argument... some people wanted Brady to be followed by "Our Steve Young," meaning somebody who was also a HOF QB, which would be great, and good luck, Mac.

But you need to recognize Brady was his own Steve Young. You stack up Young's and Montana's careers, and you get something that would be a closer 2nd place to Brady's.

It's not just over, it's like damn.

Okay next post will be its own thread, I can't make myself try to wrap the next thought into this thread lol.

I agree it goes Brady Montana, but while put Montana as the clear #2. I would also argue Staubach is the clear 3, and only below Montana due to having a substantially shorter career. I'm not going to go TOO deep into it, but here is why I will continue to simp for Staubach, the most underrated modern QB in all time talks until the day I die.

Staubach is one of all 4 QBs in the modern NFL to play in 100 games an win over 70%. It goes Brady .769, Staubach .746, Montana .713 and Manning .702 Staubach is the closest to Brady but a decent margin.

Staubach was a statistical monster for his time. Managing an 83.4 QB rating... while playing his entire career in the 70s! That is pretty insane.

In 8 healthy years of playing, he went to 4 super bowls and won 2. While that alone isn't proof of greatness, Great QB play tends to follow a certain level of results. Winning a super bowl 25% of the time you play or more is something very few QBs can claim. Montana and Brady are two of them. Making it half the time is also insane. Not even Brady accomplished that. Though he was more impressive in he almost did it with a larger sample size, but still.

Staubach was a good playoff QB for his time. He ended up 'officially 13-7 but really went 12-6 cause 2 of those games shouldn't really count as he didn't play in them much. While he had a few stinkers, overall he was competitive in most of his loses and rarely loss to a team that was worse than his.

While the cowboys didn't lack talent at all, he faced some of the best teams and defenses of any QB ever. He had practically no gimmes in either the NFC playoffs or the SB. Overall while I don't put him above Montana, there is very little not to like there.

 

[Fixit]

Jesus, I can't believe I got sucked into this insanity. If y'all will excuse me, I'm going to start prepping for the Brady Invitational that starts in a few hours.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

What are you even arguing right here? He threw 8 TD and 9 picks in the games he played. You're just eliminating seasons where you don't like the result. That's how weak your argument is.

Let's just eliminate Brady's 2009, then. He was recovering from an ACL injury.

Before you call someone pretty bad, you might want to look at the context. Montana had a severe injury in week 1 of the regular season in 1986 and everyone thought he was done for the year after getting back surgery. He worked hard to come back and did not return until November, probably earlier than he should have. He gave it a whirl but was not the same QB he was before the injury. Hence, the reason for the 8 TDs and 9 INTs that season.

Jesus, I can't believe I got sucked into this insanity. If y'all will excuse me, I'm going to start prepping for the Brady Invitational that starts in a few hours.

Maybe Brady should have invited himself...

 

[venecol]

Winning matters.

Brady career winning %: .769
Montana career winning %: .713
.769 > .713

Brady playoffs winning %: .745
Montana playoffs winning %: .696
.745 > .696

BTW, regarding INTs:

Brady playoffs INT/gm: 0.8
Montana playoffs INT/gm: 0.9
0.8 < 0.9

Sacks?

Brady playoffs sacks/gm: 1.7
Montana playoffs sacks/gm: 2.0
1.7 < 2.0

Brady > Montana

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Winning matters.

Brady career winning %: .769
Montana career winning %: .713
.769 > .713

Brady playoffs winning %: .745
Montana playoffs winning %: .696
.745 > .696

BTW, regarding INTs:

Brady playoffs INT/gm: 0.8
Montana playoffs INT/gm: 0.9
0.8 < 0.9

Sacks?

Brady playoffs sacks/gm: 1.7
Montana playoffs sacks/gm: 2.0
1.7 < 2.0

Brady > Montana

What this tells me is Montana excelled in what he did during the 80s, which was a much tougher era to play football than the 2000s. Add this to the fact that Montana had a HOF coach for only 8 years, no coach-to-quarterback helmet communication whatsover, and was ALWAYS under center and never in shotgun, it really is impressive. I'm really glad you put this together.

 

[Dingleberry]

Winning matters.

Brady career winning %: .769
Montana career winning %: .713
.769 > .713

Brady playoffs winning %: .745
Montana playoffs winning %: .696
.745 > .696

BTW, regarding INTs:

Brady playoffs INT/gm: 0.8
Montana playoffs INT/gm: 0.9
0.8 < 0.9

Sacks?

Brady playoffs sacks/gm: 1.7
Montana playoffs sacks/gm: 2.0
1.7 < 2.0

Brady > Montana

You are so dimwitted! Montana was hurt every time he threw an INT.

 

[PatsWSB47]

Before you call someone pretty bad, you might want to look at the context. Montana had a severe injury in week 1 of the regular season in 1986 and everyone thought he was done for the year after getting back surgery. He worked hard to come back and did not return until November, probably earlier than he should have. He gave it a whirl but was not the same QB he was before the injury. Hence, the reason for the 8 TDs and 9 INTs that season.



Maybe Brady should have invited himself...

LMAO

 

[venecol]

What this tells me is Montana excelled in what he did during the 80s, which was a much tougher era to play football than the 2000s. Add this to the fact that Montana had a HOF coach for only 8 years, no coach-to-quarterback helmet communication whatsover, and was ALWAYS under center and never in shotgun, it really is impressive. I'm really glad you put this together.

Not one person said Montana wasn't a great QB.

It's your take of calling them co-GOATS that's being argued.

There Can Be Only ONE.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

God at least DKF's not around to argue that Brady is better because he had to overcome Josh McDaniels' presence much of his career. I might have to go team Montana if he were

@MAC10 it's really just embarassing.,. take the clear #2 gift and call it a bad day.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

What this tells me is Montana excelled in what he did during the 80s, which was a much tougher era to play football than the 2000s. Add this to the fact that Montana had a HOF coach for only 8 years, no coach-to-quarterback helmet communication whatsover, and was ALWAYS under center and never in shotgun, it really is impressive. I'm really glad you put this together.

I finally figured it out.

Your dad blew it in your mom’s mouth and she accidentally drooled it out.

Voila.

 

[Guts]

What this tells me is Montana excelled in what he did during the 80s, which was a much tougher era to play football than the 2000s. Add this to the fact that Montana had a HOF coach for 8 years, no coach-to-helmet communication whatsover, and was ALWAYS under center and never in shotgun, it really is impressive. I'm really glad you put this together.

Lol what?? You cannot even use the coach excuse anymore when Brady won with Arians just recently. If you even mention "stacked" roster Montana automatically loses having the GOAT wide Receiver and a few HOF players without Walsh.

 

[crawhammer]

Where's Brady's dominant postseason comparable to Montana's 1989, where he annihilated every opponent? When it comes to clutchness in the Super Bowl, Brady is number 2, especially if you take into account all the mistakes he has made.

All the mistakes?? Come on, he gave the Patriots the lead in the 4th quarter of every single Super Bowl. Overall he won 7 SB's with 6 game-winning drives and 5 SB MVP's. Whatever "mistakes" he made, he generally rendered them insignificant. Much like any point in carrying on this debate.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

All the mistakes?? Come on, he gave the Patriots the lead in the 4th quarter of every single Super Bowl. Overall he won 7 SB's with 6 game-winning drives and 5 SB MVP's. Whatever "mistakes" he made, he generally rendered them insignificant. Much like any point in carrying on this debate.

When you lose multiple super bowls, the mistakes in those games matter.

 

[TommyD4207]

If not for a miracle catch, a bizarre coaching decision to sit the CB, and Welker just narrowly not making a circus catch, Brady could be 10-0.

Btw, that miracle catch doesn't happen if Samuel times his jump. Pick. Looking at the replays, it's a pick he should've made. Up to that point, he made more difficult picks in his career.

It goes both ways.

Brady has been lucky and unlucky. It goes with the territory when you make 10 SB's.

Montana was lucky he didn't get picked. He was unlucky Craig fumbled the ball in 90.

Roger Craig saved Montana's bacon more than once. I think it more than evened out in the end.

People either forget or ignore that for a 3-4 year stretch, Roger Craig was the best RB in football. First ever 1000/1000 back.