If Tom Brady wants to be the best Quarterback of all time, he needs to (1 Viewer)

[12punch]

Me: You're cherry-picking here when you dismiss Manning. You're only looking at negative results, eliminating Manning's many excellent playoff efforts and team wins from the data (except in the one case where it helps your argument), and ignoring the role things like defense, special teams and just plain old luck have to do with postseason success.

yeah, he's looking at a bunch of results and they all happened to be negative if you're taking the manning side of this.

sounds like a fairly compelling anti-manning argument

btw, that's quite a puppet show you've got going on inside your head

 

[TobiasFunke]

Me: You're cherry-picking here when you dismiss Manning. You're only looking at negative results, eliminating Manning's many excellent playoff efforts and team wins from the data (except in the one case where it helps your argument), and ignoring the role things like defense, special teams and just plain old luck have to do with postseason success.

yeah, he's looking at a bunch of results and they all happened to be negative if you're taking the manning side of this.

sounds like a fairly compelling anti-manning argument

btw, that's quite a puppet show you've got going on inside your head

I have no idea what this means.

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed the puppet show. I enjoyed writing it! Enjoy the Pats' celebration.

 

[bostonfred]

I don't think I should talk to you in the shark pool. I like you too much in the ffa and you're acting like the worst of the shark poolers right now.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't think I should talk to you in the shark pool. I like you too much in the ffa and you're acting like the worst of the shark poolers right now.

My thoughts exactly

Hope you enjoyed the parade

 

[bostonfred]

do you honestly not realize that I literally posted every single playoff loss from the seasons that Yudkin didn't cover? I didn't pick those out of a hat.

and the methodology is legit too. It's a direct response to what you asked.

Or did you just not read it? I'm fine with that.

I'm honestly trying to find any way that you're not being a total ### hat here.

 

[TobiasFunke]

do you honestly not realize that I literally posted every single playoff loss from the seasons that Yudkin didn't cover? I didn't pick those out of a hat.

and the methodology is legit too. It's a direct response to what you asked.

Or did you just not read it? I'm fine with that.


I'm honestly trying to find any way that you're not being a total ### hat here.

I understand that you think your methodology was responsive to my initial question. But if that was your intent, then why include the 7 INTs he threw when he won the Super Bowl? That had nothing to do with the question of whether he would have won more Super Bowls, obviously. So right off the bat it seems like you're looking to do more than answer my question, yes?

There's also the fact that "offensive points scored" is neither an accurate measure of QB play nor conclusive evidence that better defense/special teams could not have helped to team advance. Teams win games in which their offense posts 17 or fewer points all the time. As I've shown (by way of example, not to trash Brady), the Pats' first Super Bowl was won despite the offense scoring only two TDs and 26 total points in 2.5 games in which Brady played. And of course defense also impacts field position by pinning teams deep, generating turnovers and creating more possessions, which obviously impact points scored.

And the thing is, you're smart enough to know all that. So when you don't say that and instead opt for "look how bad the Colts/Broncos offense was in the games they lost!", I think it's reasonable for me to conclude that you're more interested in an anti-Manning rant than in responding to my initial question. Even more so since the initial question had already been answered to my satisfaction.

 

[ShamrockPride]

I hope this thread never ends. You all look like idiots going back and forth on these comparisons that #1. Is pointless and means NOTHING. #2. That will never have a clear "winner" as long as they both have 4 rings. Thanks for entertaining me. Now keep it going.

 

[12punch]

do you honestly not realize that I literally posted every single playoff loss from the seasons that Yudkin didn't cover? I didn't pick those out of a hat.

try using sock puppets

 

[Run It Up]

Its okay, we all know who the best QB to play the game is and if there was any doubt, in a few years when he has 8 rings you can still claim they don't matter.

 

[bostonfred]

Obviously if the defense pitched a shutout, and scored a defensive touchdown, then a better defense could have won a game no mayer how the offense played. Which is why I never said he wouldn't have win, but that he "probably wouldn't". But if we account for the possibility of a defensive touchdown, then we should certainly account for the defensive touchdowns where manning threw a pick 6.

I didn't go in with an arbitrary methodology of "17 points is the baseline", either. That's just what the numbers actually were. But in answer to your question, would a top eight defense have won those games? The answer is probably not - its certainly possible, but all else being equal, expecting the defense to allow 16 or fewer (or 7 or fewer, or 2 or fewer) is a fairly high bar to set. so again, even if we want to imagine a world where manning had a top eight defense every single year, it still might not have accounted for another ring.

and its totally relevant to bring up 2006. Not to rip on manning, but to point out that the Colts defense did have an exceptional year for him and carry him to a superbowl - and that was not one of the "top eight" defenses Yudkin listed.

Which challenges the implication that not having a top eight defense is what held him back from winning more titles. He had top defenses more than you expected, he didn't score that much when he didn't, and he won his only title when his defense absolutely carried him.

truth be told, though, maybe the defense played better because they knew manning was struggling and guys stepped up. maybe he wouldn't have gotten beat 41-0 if they'd scored some points early. Maybe the Ravens don't intercept manning if they don't hit that hail mary. So maybe this whole exercise is pointless. Sometimes the psychology of the game is more important than the stats. I happen to think that's true - that Seattle withstood the initial patriots rush and grabbed all the momentum with their last second td before halftime and early td right afterwards. A lot of quarterbacks fold up at that point. I happen to believe that Romo is the kind who does, and that Russell Wilson is the kind who doesn't. That's not part of the dvoa formula but its real life.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Tobias laying some serious wood on the bat here.

The Brady/Kobe thing is a good comparison. Patriots fans seemingly love to bash every QB that isn't Tom Brady now.

Oh, and when Manning's D supposedly carried him to a title, the offense averaged 26 points a game in that postseason. Or 3 points more per game than Brady's Patriots did in '07 when they had (at the time) the greatest offense ever.

 

[Run It Up]

Tobias laying some serious wood on the bat here.

The Brady/Kobe thing is a good comparison. Patriots fans seemingly love to bash every QB that isn't Tom Brady now.

Oh, and when Manning's D supposedly carried him to a title, the offense averaged 26 points a game in that postseason. Or 3 points more per game than Brady's Patriots did in '07 when they had (at the time) the greatest offense ever.

The Pats averaged 36 PPG this post season against Baltimore, Indy and Seattle - with peanuts and Gronk.

 

[12punch]

Tobias laying some serious wood on the bat here.

The Brady/Kobe thing is a good comparison. Patriots fans seemingly love to bash every QB that isn't Tom Brady now.

Oh, and when Manning's D supposedly carried him to a title, the offense averaged 26 points a game in that postseason. Or 3 points more per game than Brady's Patriots did in '07 when they had (at the time) the greatest offense ever.

jesus, you salty trolls are sensitive.

in a thread comparing the great qb's great qb's will be compared.

everybody who doesn't agree with you isn't 'bashing' you.

everything fred made the effort to lay out is fact.

is reality bashing you now, too?

 

[ShamrockPride]

Tobias laying some serious wood on the bat here.

The Brady/Kobe thing is a good comparison. Patriots fans seemingly love to bash every QB that isn't Tom Brady now.

Oh, and when Manning's D supposedly carried him to a title, the offense averaged 26 points a game in that postseason. Or 3 points more per game than Brady's Patriots did in '07 when they had (at the time) the greatest offense ever.

The Pats averaged 36 PPG this post season against Baltimore, Indy and Seattle - with peanuts and Gronk.

For what it's worth, the two toughest teams you played, Brady had an open feast to their 5th string corners. Not gonna take anything away from him cause it's just how random injuries play out, but it is worth noting.

 

[Run It Up]

Tobias laying some serious wood on the bat here.

The Brady/Kobe thing is a good comparison. Patriots fans seemingly love to bash every QB that isn't Tom Brady now.

Oh, and when Manning's D supposedly carried him to a title, the offense averaged 26 points a game in that postseason. Or 3 points more per game than Brady's Patriots did in '07 when they had (at the time) the greatest offense ever.

The Pats averaged 36 PPG this post season against Baltimore, Indy and Seattle - with peanuts and Gronk.

For what it's worth, the two toughest teams you played, Brady had an open feast to their 5th string corners. Not gonna take anything away from him cause it's just how random injuries play out, but it is worth noting.

Cincy, Denver, Detroit, Green Bay?

 

[sn0mm1s]

Tobias laying some serious wood on the bat here.

The Brady/Kobe thing is a good comparison. Patriots fans seemingly love to bash every QB that isn't Tom Brady now.

Oh, and when Manning's D supposedly carried him to a title, the offense averaged 26 points a game in that postseason. Or 3 points more per game than Brady's Patriots did in '07 when they had (at the time) the greatest offense ever.

Or 7 pts more per game than Manning's Broncos did in '13 when they had the greatest offense ever.

Wait... what is your point?

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

You did when you said, Removes context, doesn't do stupid things like give Brady extra credit for winning a ring in 2001-02 even though the Pats' offense was horrible when he was on the field

Didn't you?

I am relaxed, couldn't be happier and far from responding to every single comment, most of us (certainly I do) ignore 75-90% of the hater crap guys like you obsessively write. Just like I have done with most of your posts in this thread; I honestly haven't looked but I bet your anti Brady posts far out number my pro Brady posts.

If you are going to post formulas implying that stiffs like Mark Sanchez are much better playoff QBs than Brady or that the NE offense was horrible with Brady on the field in 2001-2002 then I will occasionally chime in and call you on it. Nothing personal here, but rather than lecturing pats fans on how we need to relax, how about you take your own advice and give it a rest for a while?

Re the bolded: The Pats' offense scored a grand total of two touchdowns in ten quarters with Brady behind center in the 2001-02 postseason. That's poor offensive production by any measure. That doesn't mean he was poor on the final drive of one game- that's a completely different question. And it wasn't meant as a slight on Brady as much as a reason why measuring QBs by titles won is kinda silly.

Otherwise, I think you're mis-reading my posts and the discussion. I haven't been hating at all. Go ahead and look back if you don't believe me. Here's how I'd say it went down:

[lots of talk about Brady vis a vis other great QBs, including one post using titles as comparison point]

Me: I don't like using titles to measure players. Would Manning/Marino have more titles with defenses on par with those Brady has played with?

Anarchy99: Probably not. Here's some work I've done looking into that.

Me: Interesting. Thanks.

Conversation could have happily ended here as far as I'm concerned. Instead, we got ...

Bostonfred: OMG MANNING TOTALLY SUCKS LOOK AT HOW FEW POINTS MANNING'S TEAM SCORED IN THE PLAYOFF GAMES HIS TEAM LOST AND ALSO HE THREW LOTS OF PICKS WHEN THEY WON A SUPER BOWL WHAT A LOSER LOL

Me: You're cherry-picking here when you dismiss Manning. You're only looking at negative results, eliminating Manning's many excellent playoff efforts and team wins from the data (except in the one case where it helps your argument), and ignoring the role things like defense, special teams and just plain old luck have to do with postseason success.

Bostonfred: (repeats the above)

Me: Look, here's one objective measure of player value. And here's another. And there are other objective stats that recognize that Manning and Brady have been about the same in the playoffs. None of them are perfect, but taken together they suggest that the difference between their teams' postseason success is more about differences in what their teammates have done than in how they have performed.

A bunch of other people: Mark Sanchez sucks!

Me: Yes. Yes he does.

Sure, I probably got in a jab or two after Bostonfred lost his mind about Manning, because hey, I'm human. And you're right, I shouldn't have "lectured" anyone about how to enjoy their team. My bad there. Enjoy the rest of your parade day and the rest of the careers of your team's incredible QB and head coach.

If you want to say the Patriots Defense and STs played a LARGE role in NEs first SB (2001) you certainly won't get an argument from me. However, if you say the offense was horrible when Brady was on the field I have to disagree.

Brady threw for over 300 yards and scrambled for a key td in the game against Oak during a wicked snow storm; thats not horrible (which is what you called it). Brady got knocked out of the Pitt game in the 1st half, but he was moving the ball pretty well against them and right before he got knocked out of the game he had moved the ball to around the Pitt 35yd line iirc. I believe his qb rating for when he was in there was around 90, again not what I would call horrible playing on the road in Pittsburgh. In the SB against STL, which I believe had the top D that year he played pretty well and once they were up a couple of tds (1 via pass, 1 via Def) I thought they played pretty conservatively. When STL tied the game with just over a minute to go he took them down the field and put them in position to win.

Obviously NEs D and STs were key to winning that 1st SB, but Brady in only his 2nd year did a pretty decent job and was far from horrible imho.

It's all good, lke I said, I am on cloud 9 and could not be happier with the local team than I am now.

Good luck to you too and whatever team you root for; I know a lot of people are sick of seeing NE win as much as they do and I don't blame them 1 bit.

 

[parrot]

Tobias laying some serious wood on the bat here.

The Brady/Kobe thing is a good comparison. Patriots fans seemingly love to bash every QB that isn't Tom Brady now.

Oh, and when Manning's D supposedly carried him to a title, the offense averaged 26 points a game in that postseason. Or 3 points more per game than Brady's Patriots did in '07 when they had (at the time) the greatest offense ever.

I would guess that Tobias will probably call you out on this and point out that better defensive play can help boost offensive numbers, like the fact that Peyton's defense generated 13 turnovers in those 4 games to help offset Peyton's 7 picks and 1 fumble.

 

[kyoun1e]

You can cut and slice this data any way you like it and cherry pick this and that, but if you've listened to the talking heads this week the current perception is this:

* Tom Brady and Joe Montana are in the discussion for GOAT.

* You can make a case for either, but good luck putting one over the other.

* Manning, except for a small minority, is not in this discussion.

Keeping having fun with lies, lies, and statistics.

That's what it is.

 

[ShamrockPride]

You can cut and slice this data any way you like it and cherry pick this and that, but if you've listened to the talking heads this week the current perception is this:

* Tom Brady and Joe Montana are in the discussion for GOAT.

* You can make a case for either, but good luck putting one over the other.

* Manning, except for a small minority, is not in this discussion.

Keeping having fun with lies, lies, and statistics.

That's what it is.

Most intelligent post I've read in this thread.

 

[General Tso]

I want another puppet show

 

[Devine Intervention]

To put things in perspective of how ticky tack this all is. If sea runs the ball and most likely scores then Brady would have lost his 3rd Super Bowl. Making him a .500 qb in the big game. Adding to the fact that he hasn't won a ring in a decade. Clearly not putting him at montana status.

It was a good win. Both teams could've won and would've deserved it.

But Brady's legacy could have gone from one end of the spectrum to the other just based on a coaches decision to pass instead of run.

If sea runs and wins the game, Brady's performance doesn't change at all but the opinions of his legacy all change

 

[12punch]

To put things in perspective of how ticky tack this all is. If sea runs the ball and most likely scores then Brady would have lost his 3rd Super Bowl. Making him a .500 qb in the big game. Adding to the fact that he hasn't won a ring in a decade. Clearly not putting him at montana status.

It was a good win. Both teams could've won and would've deserved it.

But Brady's legacy could have gone from one end of the spectrum to the other just based on a coaches decision to pass instead of run.

If sea runs and wins the game, Brady's performance doesn't change at all but the opinions of his legacy all change

excuse me?

 

[Devine Intervention]

Yes. Before that play they had a 90% chance of winning. That's most likely

 

[ShamrockPride]

Brady couldn't get it down the field against either of those Giants defenses with a minute to go and they weren't even as good as Seattle. Brady wouldn't be dinking his way 80 yards with 30 seconds left.

 

[msommer]

To put things in perspective of how ticky tack this all is. If sea runs the ball and most likely scores then Brady would have lost his 3rd Super Bowl. Making him a .500 qb in the big game. Adding to the fact that he hasn't won a ring in a decade. Clearly not putting him at montana status.

It was a good win. Both teams could've won and would've deserved it.

But Brady's legacy could have gone from one end of the spectrum to the other just based on a coaches decision to pass instead of run.

If sea runs and wins the game, Brady's performance doesn't change at all but the opinions of his legacy all change

excuse me?

I think what DI is saying is that Brady already lost two and this would have been the third loss, instead of the fourth win as it stands

 

[ghostguy123]

I havent read through much of this but just wanted to ask a quick question.

Has anyone made the argument that 4-0 in the super bowl is better than 4-2?

 

[Niles Standish]

To put things in perspective of how ticky tack this all is. If sea runs the ball and most likely scores then Brady would have lost his 3rd Super Bowl. Making him a .500 qb in the big game. Adding to the fact that he hasn't won a ring in a decade. Clearly not putting him at montana status.

It was a good win. Both teams could've won and would've deserved it.

But Brady's legacy could have gone from one end of the spectrum to the other just based on a coaches decision to pass instead of run.

If sea runs and wins the game, Brady's performance doesn't change at all but the opinions of his legacy all change

Or if Russell Wilson doesn't throw an INT. See that's the thing the expected outcome of the run and pass are about the same. Based on the stats of the last 5 years it would have been slightly better to run on average. Based on the states from this season it would have been slightly better to pass on average. Over 5 years the odds of a fumble and INT are about the same on that play.

The Pats D stepped up against Seattle, they didn't step up the previous 2 losses allowing go ahead scores in the last 2 minutes both games.

 

[Insein]

U havent read through much of this but just wanted to ask a quick question.

Has anyone made the argument that 4-0 in the super bowl is better than 4-2?

No they haven't yet. Good point. Bradshaw is the GOAT clearly.

 

[bostonfred]

Yes but montana didn't win any afc championship games. Brady has six.

 

[parrot]

Brady couldn't get it down the field against either of those Giants defenses with a minute to go and they weren't even as good as Seattle. Brady wouldn't be dinking his way 80 yards with 30 seconds left.

Unless Seattle goes for two, the Pats only need a field goal to tie, and if Seattle would have scored there they undoubtedly would have gotten a stupid penalty, so we ain't looking at anywhere close to 80 yards.

 

[Workhorse]

To put things in perspective of how ticky tack this all is. If sea runs the ball and most likely scores then Brady would have lost his 3rd Super Bowl. Making him a .500 qb in the big game. Adding to the fact that he hasn't won a ring in a decade. Clearly not putting him at montana status.

It was a good win. Both teams could've won and would've deserved it.

But Brady's legacy could have gone from one end of the spectrum to the other just based on a coaches decision to pass instead of run.

If sea runs and wins the game, Brady's performance doesn't change at all but the opinions of his legacy all change

And two plays before that, Kearse makes the single luckiest catch in Super Bowl history to put Seattle in position to potentially keep Brady from a ring. A catch that beat out the second luckiest catch that actually DID cost Brady another ring. We can play the woulda-coulda-shoulda all day. Fact is, he has 4 rings.

 

[12punch]

even if seattle scores there we all know the greatest qb ever makes that epic drive to set them up for the fg and then wins it in ot to cement his legacy of goat.

that butler pick probably even cost him a little bit of epicness

 

[randall146]

even if seattle scores there we all know the greatest qb ever makes that epic drive to set them up for the fg and then wins it in ot to cement his legacy of goat.

that butler pick probably even cost him a little bit of epicness

He should key Butler's new truck

 

[kyoun1e]

To put things in perspective of how ticky tack this all is. If sea runs the ball and most likely scores then Brady would have lost his 3rd Super Bowl. Making him a .500 qb in the big game. Adding to the fact that he hasn't won a ring in a decade. Clearly not putting him at montana status.

It was a good win. Both teams could've won and would've deserved it.

But Brady's legacy could have gone from one end of the spectrum to the other just based on a coaches decision to pass instead of run.

If sea runs and wins the game, Brady's performance doesn't change at all but the opinions of his legacy all change

You could just as easily say that if it wasn't for the ridiculousness that was Tyree and Manningham catches Brady would be 6-0 in super bowls and it wouldn't be close.

But the fact of the matter is, those catches were made, as was the catch by Butler.

He is what he is. Six super bowl appearances. 4-2.

Pretty damn good. In fact, historically good.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

To put things in perspective of how ticky tack this all is. If sea runs the ball and most likely scores then Brady would have lost his 3rd Super Bowl. Making him a .500 qb in the big game. Adding to the fact that he hasn't won a ring in a decade. Clearly not putting him at montana status.

It was a good win. Both teams could've won and would've deserved it.

But Brady's legacy could have gone from one end of the spectrum to the other just based on a coaches decision to pass instead of run.

If sea runs and wins the game, Brady's performance doesn't change at all but the opinions of his legacy all change

You could just as easily say that if it wasn't for the ridiculousness that was Tyree and Manningham catches Brady would be 6-0 in super bowls and it wouldn't be close.

But the fact of the matter is, those catches were made, as was the catch by Butler.

He is what he is. Six super bowl appearances. 4-2.

Pretty damn good. In fact, historically good.

Manningham's catch, nor the throw were lucky. It was only "ridiculous" in that the throw was amazing.

Nevertheless, agree with the overall premises as you can "what if" any game to death. Bottom line is it is what it is.

 

[Green and Gold]

To put things in perspective of how ticky tack this all is. If sea runs the ball and most likely scores then Brady would have lost his 3rd Super Bowl. Making him a .500 qb in the big game. Adding to the fact that he hasn't won a ring in a decade. Clearly not putting him at montana status.

It was a good win. Both teams could've won and would've deserved it.

But Brady's legacy could have gone from one end of the spectrum to the other just based on a coaches decision to pass instead of run.

If sea runs and wins the game, Brady's performance doesn't change at all but the opinions of his legacy all change

You could just as easily say that if it wasn't for the ridiculousness that was Tyree and Manningham catches Brady would be 6-0 in super bowls and it wouldn't be close.

But the fact of the matter is, those catches were made, as was the catch by Butler.

He is what he is. Six super bowl appearances. 4-2.

Pretty damn good. In fact, historically good.

Manningham's catch, nor the throw were lucky. It was only "ridiculous" in that the throw was amazing.

Nevertheless, agree with the overall premises as you can "what if" any game to death. Bottom line is it is what it is.

Absolute truth. It was one of the more amazing throws and catches in any superbowl, even if it did go against my team. Couldn't defend it better.

 

[Ghost Rider]

And this myth that if the Manningham catch doesn't happen, the Patriots wins, is absurd. That was the first play of the drive, so if that falls incomplete, they might have driven down for the winner anyway. We'll never know. The bottom line is that that was a great throw and catch, not lucky. Now Tyree is another story...

Besides, given the hair the Patriots have won all of their Super Bowls by, you could argue that Brady is lucky to not be, say, 1-5 in Super Bowls. Things happened how they happen. 4-2 in the Super Bowl is still impressive as ####.

 

[General Tso]

I'm starting to wonder why we even play the games anymore.

 

[JetMaxx]

As much as it pains me to say it, this one sealed the deal for me regarding the GOAT. Said it during the game to my fellow Eagles fans, to rolling eyes, that if he brought them back, down 14 vs the best defense in the NFL when they knew he had to throw, he goes to the front of the list.

4 SB wins, 6 SB appearances, 9 AFCCGs. To the hater clowns in this thread, I enjoy a good troll but

 

[ghostguy123]

even if seattle scores there we all know the greatest qb ever makes that epic drive to set them up for the fg and then wins it in ot to cement his legacy of goat.

that butler pick probably even cost him a little bit of epicness

Isn't it rather funny that the last Seattle drive actually has a bearing on the way people think of Brady compared to other greats?

Does Brady's career legacy really change if Seattle fails like they did, or if they ran the clock down to zero and won on the last play?

Weird.

 

[JetMaxx]

even if seattle scores there we all know the greatest qb ever makes that epic drive to set them up for the fg and then wins it in ot to cement his legacy of goat.

that butler pick probably even cost him a little bit of epicness

Isn't it rather funny that the last Seattle drive actually has a bearing on the way people think of Brady compared to other greats?

Does Brady's career legacy really change if Seattle fails like they did, or if they ran the clock down to zero and won on the last play?

Weird.

Is the determination fickle? Absolutely. But the fact that he brought them back, overcoming the greatest deficit in SB history against the best defense in the NFL trumps the uncertain and uncontrollable.

 

[ghostguy123]

even if seattle scores there we all know the greatest qb ever makes that epic drive to set them up for the fg and then wins it in ot to cement his legacy of goat.

that butler pick probably even cost him a little bit of epicness

Isn't it rather funny that the last Seattle drive actually has a bearing on the way people think of Brady compared to other greats?

Does Brady's career legacy really change if Seattle fails like they did, or if they ran the clock down to zero and won on the last play?

Weird.

Is the determination fickle? Absolutely. But the fact that he brought them back, overcoming the greatest deficit in SB history against the best defense in the NFL trumps the uncertain and uncontrollable.

Unfortunately, for some people, they would think less of Brady if Seattle were to score there with no time left. People are weird like that.

Also, I had posed the question before asking if anyone had made the argument that 4-0 in the Super Bowl is better than 4-2.

I only asked because of a stupid argument on Mike and Mike I heard a while back where Greenberg was arguing that a 4-0 Super Bowl record is better than 4-2. Probably the dumbest argument I have ever heard anyone make, ever.

Pretty obvious 4-2 is better than 4-0. Does anyone NOT think that is obvious?

 

[12punch]

even if seattle scores there we all know the greatest qb ever makes that epic drive to set them up for the fg and then wins it in ot to cement his legacy of goat.

that butler pick probably even cost him a little bit of epicness

Isn't it rather funny that the last Seattle drive actually has a bearing on the way people think of Brady compared to other greats?

Does Brady's career legacy really change if Seattle fails like they did, or if they ran the clock down to zero and won on the last play?

Weird.

Is the determination fickle? Absolutely. But the fact that he brought them back, overcoming the greatest deficit in SB history against the best defense in the NFL trumps the uncertain and uncontrollable.

Unfortunately, for some people, they would think less of Brady if Seattle were to score there with no time left. People are weird like that.

Also, I had posed the question before asking if anyone had made the argument that 4-0 in the Super Bowl is better than 4-2.

I only asked because of a stupid argument on Mike and Mike I heard a while back where Greenberg was arguing that a 4-0 Super Bowl record is better than 4-2. Probably the dumbest argument I have ever heard anyone make, ever.

Pretty obvious 4-2 is better than 4-0. Does anyone NOT think that is obvious?

i would say first of all, that's talk radio.

whether it's intentional or not their job is to be clowns

secondly, I've heard mike + mike, and it hasn't changed my opinion --- only good nfl chat is on nfl network on sirius

thirdify, despite being completely asinine, I have seen that very argument put forth right here in the SHARK pool --- and I'm sure it wan't trolling because we don't piss in the pool and everyone is excellent in here.

 

[ghostguy123]

Someone here at work also tried to argue that 4-0 was better than 4-2. Didn't take more than a minute for me to get them to change their minds.

Then we got into the discussion of "would you rather be 2-0 in the Super Bowl or 1-10." Was an interesting convo.

Yeah, talk radio is terrible a lot of the time. I don't listen to M&M much, just on occasion on my way home from work in the AM. I listen to the local Cleveland talk mostly, which admittedly is just as dumb a lot of the time.

As for who is the best QB ever, it's such a fruitless argument. Some people try and argue it like they are right or something. There is no right to this one.

 

[ShamrockPride]

2-0 and 1-10 is very different from 4-0 and 4-2. The fact you had to resort to such extremes proves that exaggeration is the only way to make that point.

As for the 4-0 and 4-2, I don't think one is overly more impressive than the other. On one hand, with a SIGNIFICANT amount of appearances in the big game (my opinion on "significant" is 3 times) you never lost. On the other hand, you got there more. But nobody remembers the losers with the exception of a team like the 07 Pats, until you look on a piece of paper naming career accomplishments at the end of a career. It's a wash for me with regards to that argument.

 

[ghostguy123]

2-0 and 1-10 is very different from 4-0 and 4-2. The fact you had to resort to such extremes proves that exaggeration is the only way to make that point.

Huh?? I didn't resort to anything, and I have no idea what point you think I was trying to make with that. I don't even know which side I would prefer. 1-0 vs 0-4 would be an interesting convo also, and that isn't all that extreme since it has happened.

And when you say nobody remembers the losers until you look at career accomplishments, well, isn't that the point? The career?

 

[PatsWillWin]

even if seattle scores there we all know the greatest qb ever makes that epic drive to set them up for the fg and then wins it in ot to cement his legacy of goat.

that butler pick probably even cost him a little bit of epicness

Isn't it rather funny that the last Seattle drive actually has a bearing on the way people think of Brady compared to other greats?

Does Brady's career legacy really change if Seattle fails like they did, or if they ran the clock down to zero and won on the last play?

Weird.

This has been said a lot. I don't think it's weird. I think it's the nature of football. People constantly ask questions like this (not singling you out).

 

[ghostguy123]

even if seattle scores there we all know the greatest qb ever makes that epic drive to set them up for the fg and then wins it in ot to cement his legacy of goat.

that butler pick probably even cost him a little bit of epicness

Isn't it rather funny that the last Seattle drive actually has a bearing on the way people think of Brady compared to other greats?

Does Brady's career legacy really change if Seattle fails like they did, or if they ran the clock down to zero and won on the last play?

Weird.

This has been said a lot. I don't think it's weird. I think it's the nature of football. People constantly ask questions like this (not singling you out).

The nature of football is to judge people based on what happens when they aren't on the field? (if that is what you are saying)

That's why trying to discuss the greatest QB ever is so impossible and can be super frustrating, which is why I try to never really get into it. You can make a strong case for a lot of guys as the best QB ever.

Brady is sure as heck right up there with any of them though.

 

[JetMaxx]

4/6/9 makes it rather easy for me