Tom Brady has won more playoff games than Joe Montana qualified for

[shmessy]

Why would I post here for 5 years and decide to be a troll now

We all celebrate in our own way, babe.

 

[fightingirish595]

.....and has a BETTER WINNING PERCENTAGE.

My 7 year old niece understands that concept better than you.

.

I do get it. And One of my knocks on Montana is that one of the reasons he didnt win more is because he got injured. If you think Im saying Montana would have better records than Brady if he stayed healthy, then I'd like to know what I said to make you think that. I really hope thats not the impression I am giving

 

[Deus Irae]

Why would I troll. never done that why would I now? I mean I have stated a bunch of times that Brady is the Goat. So whats the issue

Because, if you're not trolling, you appear to be constitutionally incapable of holding a rational conversation on this issue.

 

[fightingirish595]

Because, if you're not trolling, you appear to be constitutionally incapable of holding a rational conversation on this issue.

Because this discussion got taken to a place where it seems as if There has been a misunderstanding of what Im trying to say, and maybe thats my fault. But I spelled out pretty well in my last post I think.

 

[Ring 6]

Because this discussion got taken to a place where it seems as if There has been a misunderstanding of what Im trying to say, and maybe thats my fault. But I spelled out pretty well in my last post I think.

You said aside from durability they are equal.

 

[fightingirish595]

You said aside from durability they are equal.

Yes I did say that. But Bradys durability has allowed him to accomplish things Montana wasnt able to in my opinion. Durability and longevity is a huge factor in my opinion. The run Brady has had is unparalleled. I put a lot of stock into Joes superbowl history, thats why I hold him in such high reguard

Edit: statistically speaking, I think joe did pretty much as well as he could do in the system he was in, the time period he played in, And the amount of games he played in

 

[Ring 6]

Yes I did say that. But Bradys durability has allowed him to accomplish things Montana wasnt able to in my opinion. Durability and longevity is a huge factor in my opinion. The run Brady has had is unparalleled. I put a lot of stock into Joes superbowl history, thats why I hold him in such high reguard

Edit: statistically speaking, I think joe did pretty much as well as he could do in the system he was in, the time period he played in, And the amount of games he played in

And you wonder why people are questioning your opinion and reject you saying you are only claiming it's a factor

Durability aside Brady is better. It's not really close. Montana is 2nd but the gap is clear and unquestionable.

 

[Ring 6]

Brady could lose 23 consecutive games and still have a higher win % than Montana.

 

[fightingirish595]

And you wonder why people are questioning your opinion and reject you saying you are only claiming it's a factor

Durability aside Brady is better. It's not really close. Montana is 2nd but the gap is clear and unquestionable.

Okay thats fine, I appreciate you having a civilized discussion about it. At the end of the day you cant put durability aside. We were talking about Bob sanders in another thread. He only played about 2 full years and was an all pro both times, great talent, but injuries held him back. If we do put durability aside I dont think its as clear cut as you think. I hope you can respect that. All things considered Brady is the goat. And it was probably dumb of me to say "Durability aside" Ill have to go back to see exactly why I said that

 

[Deus Irae]

Because this discussion got taken to a place where it seems as if There has been a misunderstanding of what Im trying to say, and maybe thats my fault. But I spelled out pretty well in my last post I think.

This discussion has gone places because you've continually moved the goalposts to those places. You've basically posted nothing but nonsense and, when called on it, just doubled down with more nonsense. You've been so ridiculous in this thread that we should name you an honorary "Trade Brady" poster.

You should have pushed away from your computer and never re-visited this thread, because you've made a complete fool of yourself.

 

[fightingirish595]

This discussion has gone places because you've continually moved the goalposts to those places. You've basically posted nothing but nonsense and, when called on it, just doubled down with more nonsense. You've been so ridiculous in this thread that we should name you an honorary "Trade Brady" poster.

You should have pushed away from your computer and never re-visited this thread, because you've made a complete fool of yourself.

Never slighted Brady once. Have only credited him.

 

[fightingirish595]

Brady could lose 23 consecutive games and still have a higher win % than Montana.

Did you know that Brady has started about 70 more games than Montana? Thats my point about the Longevity and durability. Mannings stats are better than bradys due to volume, just by the fact that Manning had extra years and didnt sit his rookie year. Thats why I hate when people say Manning has been the better regular season QB. Its just not true. Its all volume. For Brady Montana, The volume difference is largely due to durability. But system and era affected the statistic difference as well. I could argue Brady is the best QB in regular and post season history. Hes certainly better than Montana in the regular season, Convincing people hes better than manning is another story

 

[fightingirish595]

This discussion has gone places because you've continually moved the goalposts to those places. You've basically posted nothing but nonsense and, when called on it, just doubled down with more nonsense. You've been so ridiculous in this thread that we should name you an honorary "Trade Brady" poster.

You should have pushed away from your computer and never re-visited this thread, because you've made a complete fool of yourself.

I think I was misunderstood, and that may be my fault. Montana had 16 years in the league, not 15, nobody corrected me on that, and Brady is in year 17. Bradys started in about 70 more games and played in about 40 or 50 more. Durability was a problem for Montana. He missed a lot of time. That hurts his argument against brady

 

[1960Pats]

The real reason is that Montana had so many one and outs.

Not to mention that Brady is more clutch, wins more often, is bigger, better and way more brainy than Joe.

Another question about Montana would be how much influence Jerry 'Sticky' Rice had on Joe's limited success.

It's really kind of funny seeing Brady lose points based on longevity, like he's the Yaz of the NYFL.

 

[Ring 6]

Did you know that Brady has started about 70 more games than Montana? Thats my point about the Longevity and durability. Mannings stats are better than bradys due to volume, just by the fact that Manning had extra years and didnt sit his rookie year. Thats why I hate when people say Manning has been the better regular season QB. Its just not true. Its all volume. For Brady Montana, The volume difference is largely due to durability. But system and era affected the statistic difference as well. I could argue Brady is the best QB in regular and post season history. Hes certainly better than Montana in the regular season, Convincing people hes better than manning is another story

What are you talking about?

 

[Ring 6]

Never slighted Brady once. Have only credited him.

You are slighting him by saying it's all because of longevity. He is better.

 

[fightingirish595]

What are you talking about?

pointing out differences between durability between montana and brady. And how it hurt montana. Bradys stats are going to be higher obviously because of that. But the reason for the volume matters. eventually Brady will catch Manningor get very close. I brought up The comparison to manning to show that the context of the volume matters.

 

[Ring 6]

pointing out differences between durability between montana and brady. And how it hurt montana. Bradys stats are going to be higher obviously because of that. But the reason for the volume matters. eventually Brady will catch Manningor get very close. I brought up The comparison to manning to show that the context of the volume matters.

Who is talking about volume stats?

Let's start over
Brady has won more playoff games than Montana played in. Playoff games are earned by making the playoffs and winning to advance.
The idea that Montana is comparable to Brady because of a soon to be broken we hope the in SB championship is blown away by this fact.

Brady is better. Brady wins more therefore Brady plays more playoff games.

 

[fightingirish595]

You are slighting him by saying it's all because of longevity. He is better.

I never said it was all because of longevity. I do think Its the biggest factor though. Longevity isnt bad, the pats arent winning in spite of brady, they win because of him. The 2 extra one and outs hurt Montanas possibilty to get more wins.

 

[TommyD4207]

Edit: statistically speaking, I think joe did pretty much as well as he could do in the system he was in, the time period he played in, And the amount of games he played in

The West Coast ****ing offense? Coached by the same guy that invented the ****ing thing?

The system that was so good that half the league runs it today? THAT West Coast Offense?

You'd rather have Montana play in the run-and-shoot or something?