The most mindblowing stat

[jmt57]

The thing that most overlook when talking about Brady and the Patriots when comparisons are made to others are the challenges brought on by the salary cap and free agency. It was much easier for a good team to remain at a high level of play for an extended period of time back then; what Brady and the Pats are doing wasn't supposed to happen.


One argument I have never followed as being particularly logical is a player or team's record in the Super Bowl/league championship - or more specifically the winning percentage. For example why would failing to get to that championship game all but two times be superior than getting there five times. There seems to be this "he always won the big game" aura of a quarterback that has a perfect Super Bowl winning percentage - but all the times he and his team lost leading up to that championship game don't count? That just doesn't make any sense to me and never has. Based on that logic the Jets, Saints and Buccaneers with their 1.000 winning percentages in the Super Bowl are better historical franchises than the Packers, Bears and Browns - even though that first group has one championship apiece and the latter has combined for thirty.

To me the 'Montana is undefeated' phrase while technically correct, it leaves an invalid implication. In four of his seasons as a starting QB he and his team did not win enough games to even qualify for the playoffs. Montana had four one-and-dones (including three in a row), plus three other playoff losses. I see many here (and elsewhere) say the only thing that matters is the ring (championship). For those that do think that way that therefore means Montana was not 4-0; he was 4-8 as a starter (plus three more non-playoff years where he started fewer than half his team's games).

Don't get me wrong, this isn't a knock on Montana - he is one of the very best, if not the best quarterback in NFL history. I'm just saying that to me it doesn't make any sense that losing a crucial game that keeps you out of the playoffs, or a playoff game doesn't count - but losing a championship game does. Where's the logic in thinking that losing a conference championship game is okay, but winning a conference championship game (and then losing the next game) is a negative?

Maybe we've all been brainwashed by fifty years of Super Bowl hype to the point where we believe the only thing that matters is one's winning percentage in that game, and that losing that game is worse than not being good enough to get there.



Back to Graham: going to the championship game in every one of your ten years as a professional football player is a mark that is virtually untouchable. Even if you discount the 4-0 record in championship games in the AAFC, going to six consecutive NFL championship games (and winning three) is still pretty remarkable.

 

[Off The Grid]

The thing that most overlook when talking about Brady and the Patriots when comparisons are made to others are the challenges brought on by the salary cap and free agency. It was much easier for a good team to remain at a high level of play for an extended period of time back then; what Brady and the Pats are doing wasn't supposed to happen.

It should go without saying that it's far harder to win Super Bowls in the Salary Cap Era that it used to be: the Bears of the 40's, the Browns of the 50's, the Packers of the 60's, the Steelers of the 70's, the Miners of the 80's, and the CowBoys of the 90's all had an enormous advantage over us.

Winning 3 Super Bowls in one decade in this era is more impressive, for my money, because of the relentless Roster Attrition that levels the playing field like it never did back then...than winning 4 in the 70's or 80's, as the Steelers and Miners did.

For my money, we're already right up there as equals of the 50's Browns and 60's Packers.

And that's without even considering how many fewer teams they had to compete against.

One argument I have never followed as being particularly logical is a player or team's record in the Super Bowl/league championship - or more specifically the winning percentage. For example why would failing to get to that championship game all but two times be superior than getting there five times. There seems to be this "he always won the big game" aura of a quarterback that has a perfect Super Bowl winning percentage - but all the times he and his team lost leading up to that championship game don't count? That just doesn't make any sense to me and never has. Based on that logic the Jets, Saints and Buccaneers with their 1.000 winning percentages in the Super Bowl are better historical franchises than the Packers, Bears and Browns - even though that first group has one championship apiece and the latter has combined for thirty.

To me the 'Montana is undefeated' phrase while technically correct, it leaves an invalid implication. In four of his seasons as a starting QB he and his team did not win enough games to even qualify for the playoffs. Montana had four one-and-dones (including three in a row), plus three other playoff losses. I see many here (and elsewhere) say the only thing that matters is the ring (championship). For those that do think that way that therefore means Montana was not 4-0; he was 4-8 as a starter (plus three more non-playoff years where he started fewer than half his team's games).

Don't get me wrong, this isn't a knock on Montana - he is one of the very best, if not the best quarterback in NFL history. I'm just saying that to me it doesn't make any sense that losing a crucial game that keeps you out of the playoffs, or a playoff game doesn't count - but losing a championship game does. Where's the logic in thinking that losing a conference championship game is okay, but winning a conference championship game (and then losing the next game) is a negative?

Nobody with 2 Brain Cells would ever argue with that.

HELL...

Nobody who ever saw the Giants ANNIHILATE Montana and the Miners, 49-3, in the Divisionals in 1986 should ever again subscribe to that infantile notion that The Great Ones Never Get Their Faces Punched In.

Everybody gets a beating, now and then.

Maybe we've all been brainwashed by fifty years of Super Bowl hype to the point where we believe the only thing that matters is one's winning percentage in that game, and that losing that game is worse than not being good enough to get there.

That's generous of you, but I have never been brainwashed of that nonsense, and it's clear that neither have you.

Back to Graham: going to the championship game in every one of your ten years as a professional football player is a mark that is virtually untouchable. Even if you discount the 4-0 record in championship games in the AAFC, going to six consecutive NFL championship games (and winning three) is still pretty remarkable.

And with the way they clobbered the arrogant 2-time defending Champion Eagles in their inaugural NFL game, and then went on to win that year's Championship ~ and 3 of 6, while playing in ALL 6 Championship games ~ I think we can pretty safely "GrandFather" those first 4 Championships in, in some way!!

 

[PatsFanSince74]

10 years as a starter and 5 of them Brady has led his team to a SB. Compare that to any QB not named Otto Graham(who played in an era of who gives a ****) and you have nobody that comes even close. And Brady looks like he is well on his way for more with a complete roster turnaround.


Brady 5 of 10

Giant forehead - 2 of 13

Montana 4 of 13 (unless i'm missing some other injury seasons) + a ****load of talent on O + like top 3 ranked Ds every season he did win, which never seems to get mentioned.

Elway - 5 of 16

Favre - 2 of 25(??)

Rapistberger - 3 of 8 - carried by the best D of the decade and still needs 2 consecutive SB appearances just to match #12

Marino - 1 of 17

Jets - 0 of 40+

Brady - born to win.

You left out the two other "comparables" (in addition to Montana), if the criterion is simply Conference Championships: Roger Staubach who took the Cowboys to four SB's, winning two, in just eight years as a starter (1971 and 1973 through 1979) and Terry Bradshaw, who took the Steelers to four in 11 years as a starter (not counting the Strike shortened 1982 season). Bradshaw, of course, has the added claim that, like Montana, his teams won all the Super Bowls that they contested.

I also would probably include Troy Aikman whose career was shortened by injury but who went to and won three SB's in 11 seasons as starter.

While it's fair to leave Eli out of that company, we do have to give him an "Incomplete" and live with the unpleasant reality that he's taken his teams to two SB's in just seven full seasons as a starter, winning, ugh, both.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

And yet somehow his SB losses are enough so that people remove him from the G.O.A.T. conversation.

:bricks:

The GOAT discussion is only relevant when Brady's career is over, so I'm not getting into that.

But, it's a big deal to go to the big game four times and never lose it. I'm as big a homer as anyone out here when I want to be, but that's a pretty amazing thing to consider. Whatever it was, those guys did what it took to come away with the W every time they had their swipe at the golden ring.

We can whine all we want about "supporting casts" and "Free Agency" and "Parity" and "Great Defenses" and whatever else we want to pull out, but it's pretty damn amazing to win every game the four times that everything was on the line. As a fan, I just can't take that away from Montana and Bradshaw.

 

[JohninLynn]

Might have been 6 out of 11 if Brady doesn't get injured in 08. Gotta think they would have won 2 or 3 more regular season games that year which would have gotten them the #1 seed

There’s a man who brings dread upon sight.
He’s a bad luck charm, jinx and a blight!
Cost us a trophy for sure
And a chance at two more
Bernard Pollard, the Pats kryptonite!

 

[Ring 6]

The GOAT discussion is only relevant when Brady's career is over, so I'm not getting into that.

But, it's a big deal to go to the big game four times and never lose it. I'm as big a homer as anyone out here when I want to be, but that's a pretty amazing thing to consider. Whatever it was, those guys did what it took to come away with the W every time they had their swipe at the golden ring.

We can whine all we want about "supporting casts" and "Free Agency" and "Parity" and "Great Defenses" and whatever else we want to pull out, but it's pretty damn amazing to win every game the four times that everything was on the line. As a fan, I just can't take that away from Montana and Bradshaw.

If Brady gets #4 this year, and is 4-2 in SBs, that is absolutely better than Monanta's 4-0, because Brady made it to the SB before liosing twice, as oppossed to Montana simply losing earlier in the playoffs.
Losing in an NFCC or divisional playoff game does not make you better than winning those games, then losing the SB.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

If Brady gets #4 this year, and is 4-2 in SBs, that is absolutely better than Monanta's 4-0, because Brady made it to the SB before liosing twice, as oppossed to Montana simply losing earlier in the playoffs.
Losing in an NFCC or divisional playoff game does not make you better than winning those games, then losing the SB.

true but everyone will be saying brady still lost 2 super bowls while montana and bradshaw did not. 5 out of 7 would make it case closed in favor of brady.

in NFL networks top 100 of all time list, brady is at 20 while The Forehead is at 9, even though he didn't play this year. Already the experts have knocked brady down a notch.

 

[jmt57]

But, it's a big deal to go to the big game four times and never lose it. I'm as big a homer as anyone out here when I want to be, but that's a pretty amazing thing to consider. Whatever it was, those guys did what it took to come away with the W every time they had their swipe at the golden ring.

We can whine all we want about "supporting casts" and "Free Agency" and "Parity" and "Great Defenses" and whatever else we want to pull out, but it's pretty damn amazing to win every game the four times that everything was on the line. As a fan, I just can't take that away from Montana and Bradshaw.

I absolutely agree and don't mean to disrespect either of them in the least for their accomplishments. I just consider the 'undefeated' angle when the topic comes up for discussion to be a bit disingenuous; to me there are many out there that take that statistic to an extreme, a bit over the edge. There is a certain segment that attempt to portray them as being so clutch that they never lost a single important game in their entire careers.

true but everyone will be saying brady still lost 2 super bowls while montana and bradshaw did not. 5 out of 7 would make it case closed in favor of brady.

in NFL networks top 100 of all time list, brady is at 20 while The Forehead is at 9, even though he didn't play this year. Already the experts have knocked brady down a notch.

Lists such as that one tend to be far more centric on the here and now. Whoever is the best today suddenly gets consideration as the best ever. If you are talking about an all-time list then there should be very little change from one year to the next; any noticeable shift should only take place over a much longer period of time. Since that doesn't happen you should take these rankings with a grain of salt.



Getting back to the hypothetical of if Brady wins another Super Bowl, would (or should) 4-2 be considered the same, better, or not as good as 4-0:

Logically it should be better if all you are considering is championships. The players in question have the same number of league championships; the next step would be conference championships, with six being greater than four.

Realistically though the court of public opinion will instead look at it the other way, and say that two losses are greater than zero losses; they will dismiss anything and everything prior to that game as being equally unimportant.

 

[Yehoodi]

Agreed.

Whether you like it or not, Eli will go down as one of the best quarterbacks of his generation, if not the best.

Best QB of his generation? What are you smoking?? You do realize that the Gmen were 9-7 this year with 3 of the wins coming in December when the team got to play the never can win Cowboys (in december) and an imploding green beans team . . . had those game been played bofore Thanksgiving, I doubt they go 3-0 and would likley miss the playoffs . . .

when you think about Eli, answer the following question . . . What is on Eli's resume outside of 8 games in Jan/Feb '08 and '12 . . .what you hear is silience and the crickets in the background . . .

if you want to be the best of your generation (and not another Trent Dilfer), you need more on your resume than two SBs, both Manning, Brady, and Big Ben have many solid years in the not SBs winning years . . .

yes Eli is great and solid, but if he does not add to his resume outside of SB 42 and 46, then he can't be viewed as the best of his generation . . . and he is only 5 years younger that Brady so I am not sure if you would put him in the "next" generation . . .

 

[Yehoodi]

Eli's got twice as many rings as Brett Favre, Aaron Rodgers and Peyton Manning. And, he got both rings against Bill Belichick and the New England Patriots. It is what it is.

okay I will play the Trent Dilfer game with you . . .

Answer the following question:

What has Eli done outside of his two rings . . .

Once you have compiled that, then compare his career with Big Ben (that is specifically looking at a resume outside of two SB wins) and see what you get . . .

when you look at Big Ben and Eli, it definitely is what it is . . .

Both solid QBs, but i would place Big Ben over Eli . . .

 

[lurker1965]

10 years as a starter and 5 of them Brady has led his team to a SB. Compare that to any QB not named Otto Graham(who played in an era of who gives a ****) and you have nobody that comes even close.
...

Bart Starr says, "Hi."

 

[Yehoodi]

Montana is the greatest QB of all time IMO...4 SBs..4 wins = undefeated

Brady is right up there,but if Eli wins 2 more,then Brady might have a roommate up there

It's not how much you win in the regular season,it's not how many times you get to the SB...it's winning the SB that unfortunately will always be the deciding factor when ranking the G.O.A.T. QBs.....even if that doesnt seem fair.

P. Manning,Graham,Staubach,Bradshaw,Unitas,Elway will always be considered some of the best QBs ever,just not at the top.

Who knows if Aikman might have won another SB or two if he didn't retire at only 34

the last I checked Bart Starr has five rings . . . so Bart Starr > Montana IMO . . . you can't argue SB wins and then say Montana is a GOAT "cause he got more then the next guy" and then ignore Bart Starr . . . it is contradiction and breakdown in your argument . . .

 

[Yehoodi]

If Brady gets #4 this year, and is 4-2 in SBs, that is absolutely better than Monanta's 4-0, because Brady made it to the SB before liosing twice, as oppossed to Montana simply losing earlier in the playoffs.
Losing in an NFCC or divisional playoff game does not make you better than winning those games, then losing the SB.

co signed . . .

 

[lurker1965]

...

I also remember the day that in a play toward the end of the first half, half of Graham's lip was ripped open. Fifty or sixty stitches during halftime and he was back in for the second half. Won the game, of course. May have been a long time ago, but pro football in those days was anything but a powder puff game.

...

Whenever some idiot proposes Marino as the best QB without a ring I ask if 49 TDs is more impressive than 38 in 14 games where the WR can be mugged if the ball is not in the air and the QB can be hit until his head is bleeding (See Y.A. Tittle picture fortunately in Black and White).

 

[lurker1965]

Amen.

Not including Otto Graham in a conversation about Greatest QB's of All Time, or omitting Paul Brown from a discussion about Greatest Coaches of All Time, or overlooking the Browns when arguing Greatest Dynasties of All Time is like excluding ************ from a debate about Greatest Christians of All Time.

I mean: He's right up there.

I agree with you, but ************ was a Jew.

 

[scout]

Whenever some idiot proposes Marino as the best QB without a ring I ask if 49 TDs is more impressive than 38 in 14 games where the WR can be mugged if the ball is not in the air and the QB can be hit until his head is bleeding (See Y.A. Tittle picture fortunately in Black and White).

I was waiting for someone to bring this up. Not that Bradshaw belongs in the greatest group, but I saw that guy take some unbelievable hits (Oakland). What would some of these older qb's do with today's rules?

 

[hovis]

Montana is the greatest QB of all time IMO...4 SBs..4 wins = undefeated

Brady is right up there,but if Eli wins 2 more,then Brady might have a roommate up there

It's not how much you win in the regular season,it's not how many times you get to the SB...it's winning the SB that unfortunately will always be the deciding factor when ranking the G.O.A.T. QBs.....even if that doesnt seem fair.

P. Manning,Graham,Staubach,Bradshaw,Unitas,Elway will always be considered some of the best QBs ever,just not at the top.

Who knows if Aikman might have won another SB or two if he didn't retire at only 34

Winning SB's is a huge part of the equation, but not all of it. Rarely do you hear Bradshaw or Aikman in the GOAT conversation. If Eli wins two more playing the way he does, I'm still not sure he'd be in the conversation.

 

[JohninLynn]

Might have been 6 out of 11 if Brady doesn't get injured in 08. Gotta think they would have won 2 or 3 more regular season games that year which would have gotten them the #1 seed

Brady should have 5 rings by now if it wasn't for Bernie

this was supposed to be a two parter:


There’s a man who brings dread upon sight.
He’s a bad luck charm, jinx and a blight!
Cost us a trophy for sure
And a chance at two more
Bernard Pollard, the Pats kryptonite!


Of how to break this curse many proffer
So this modest proposal I’ll offer
It may the best bet,
for Bernie to get
the travel agent used by Jimmy Hoffa.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

If Brady gets #4 this year, and is 4-2 in SBs, that is absolutely better than Monanta's 4-0, because Brady made it to the SB before liosing twice, as oppossed to Montana simply losing earlier in the playoffs.
Losing in an NFCC or divisional playoff game does not make you better than winning those games, then losing the SB.

As I said, I'm not addressing the GOAT debate...that has to wait until TB's body of work is complete and he retires.

But, you are right, four wins would be four wins. If TB got them along with an unheard of six trips to the big game, it would be very, very hard (read "impossible") to argue that he's not in a class by himself. He's had two chances now to get that fourth win. Hopefully, he'll get another chance and not cough up a momentum killing safety on his first play from scrimmage.

As for the rest...the championship game is the championship game, when everything is on the line. Winning that game is special, no matter how we cut it and no matter however many other games may or may not have preceded it.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

I get nightmares when i think about what if we didn't draft him..