YGBFKM said:
No, not Flacco. I'm tired of talking about the Ravens.
I'm talking about Montana. (Damnit, I'm gonna have dental floss lyrics stuck in my head all day)
Anyway, after Brady's latest postseason failure, I want to revisit the following:
Four Super Bowls, four victories, ZERO interceptions.
I would like to be entertained by anyone who thinks they can make a rational argument that Joe Montana is NOT the greatest modern quarterback in NFL history.
glad you raised this point, 'cause fat effer fatcesca's been railing on a similar note of late (and, by the way, i certainly believe montana deserves to be in any 'best ever' discussion)... but, unlke fatcesca and to some extent you, i am NOT a proponent of the fat effer's contention that coaches agree they'd prefer to have not gone to a super bowl if they LOSE the game. what hogwash.
yes, i understand that the losing team is quickly dropped like a sore thumb from the day-after on. and that, back in the day when the loing AFC team seemed to get BLOWN OUT every year they often became the butt of jokes. but franny boy's contention that bradshaw being UNDEFEATED in four supes and montana also being 4-0, while brady's two heartbreaking supe losses to the giants means he automatically is eliminated from 'best ever' consideration is nonsense. fatcesca claims many of his coaching buddies agree they'd rather never go to a supe if they were going to lose is utter b.s. i understand the sentiment, and why franny contends the 0-4 bills 'are a joke' when they should be celebrated for just getting to 4 straight, or than elway was considered 'a loser' because of three super losses unti he finally won his two, is revisionist b.s. eleay was NEVER widely considered a 'loser' or a lchoker' for losing supes to tems the broncos didnt measure up to. elway was ALWAYS celebrated for his great playoff comeback wins -- like 'the drive' -- which made any 'he chokes' chargess silly.
as for the bills, yes, they were often ridiculed, mostly because they were BLOWN AWAY in 3 of 'em. the first was arguably the greatest supe ever, when they were upset by the giants in the 'norwide' game.
but, generally speaking certainly in recent years, when the supes have been highly competitive, there has been no such sentiment on behalf of the losing team that they would've rather not played in the supe. or by fans that the losing team hadnt accomplished anything.
the belichick/brady tandem is 3-2 in supes. i get that even if the pats had won the supe this year that 4-2 isn't a 'better record,' winning pct. wise. but the pats and brady would deserve mad accolades for winning as many as montana and bradshaw while also qualifying for the playoffs more oten and qualifying for the super six times overall. 'cause what makes the pats so dynastic isnt that they won three supes in four years, but that they year after year (when brady was healthy) won the afc east with doubledigit wins.
hey, y'all know i'm no pats lover. but while lombardi's packers and noll's steelers had 'off years,' brady's pats were in the playoffs and legit super contenders year in, year out. so what i'm saying is that the fact they lost two supes, if they had won their fourth i don't agree that 4-0 in supes is a better accomplishment than 4-2 in supes -- 'cause winning six conference championships is a bettr accomplishment than winning four confereence titles; that brady leading his team to a 4-2 record in 6 supes was more impressive than going 4-0, 'cause the former is evidence that your team had a super-quality team more than any others.
as usual, i know i'm not articulating this as clearly as i'm thinking it in my head, but do ya know what i'm saying? yes, 4-0 is a 'better record' than 4-2 but 4-2 is better in terms of year to year, high-quality dominance. am i making any sense?
simply based upon titles and his individual performance in those game it's impossible to argue that montana isnt the great 'big-game' player of all time. lordy.-
