Statistically unlikely.
NFL 2016
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
The Oilers loss was bigger and it was the playoffs. But this might be bigger because of the Super Bowl.
Yeah...no. Montana went against the Bears, the Giants, and the Redskins just to get to the Super Bowl, when all three franchise were at their peak. What would happen if Brady went against Lawrence Tayor? We already saw with Vonn Miller. He folds like a wet towel, the same as all QBs.
You felt free to disagree. Every era is defined by the teams who play in it. The standard for the past 15 years is the Patriots, every other team is measured against this team, because Five. The 2007 and 2011 Giants have something to brag about. But it's in contrast with the Pats, this era's standard with which everybody else is compared. The Giants do not define this era like NE does. It leads to questions about what could have been with different circumstances for Coughlin and the younger Manning, just as there are questions about what could have been with different circumstances for the elder Manning, but all of it is against the backdrop of the Patriots, with Five NFL season championships during the previous 15 years. During those 15 years NE failed to qualify for the playoffs twice, once the subsequent season to their first Lombardi trophy, under Brady, and the second the one season Brady did not play (2008). Of those 13 tournament appearances they drove all the way to the NFL championship game Seven times and won it Five times. That's why they're the backdrop for this era, as the 49ers were for the mid and late 80s, and as Dallas was the early 90s, and as Pittsburgh was in the mid and late 70s, and as Tampa Bay was in 2002. The seasons : playoff appearances : NFL championship appearances : NFL championships ratio, for the Pats from 2001 through 2016 (this year) is 15 : 13 : 7 : 5
Brady's is almost identical: 14 : 13 : 7 : 5
The Patriots cheated. Therefore, asterisk. Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmero....same thing. No Hall, their accomplishments are not recognized. The NFL does have an integrity issue and that holds them back from doing what is right.
If Brady weren't IR-ed in 2008, with a team that without him won 11 games, do you think that he could have added to the ratio? I do.
Seasons : Playoffs : SBs : Championships
Actual record/ratio: 14 : 13 : 7 : 5
(Chance) and result
(0.071) 15 : 13 : 7 : 5 (Miss playoffs)
(0.143) 15 : 14 : 8 : 5 (Lose SB)
(0.357) 15 : 14 : 8 : 6 (Win SB)
(0.429) 15 : 14 : 7 : 5 (Playoff elimination)
If longevity isn't a plus, then let's play fair. If not for 2008's injury, there's a 35% chance that he'd have 6 rings right now, out of 8 SBs, out of 15 seasons.
Last edited:
What part does cheating have to do with winning two of the last three NFL seasons?
The problem with the whole GOAT business is that the answer depends on your litmus. Brady has more rings. So does Bill Russell. But who played the best and had the most impact on those rings? I'd answer Adam V for three of Brady's, though Tom was terrific in the third.
Looking at the playoffs:
A great qb is having a bad day if his rating falls under 90 (pro bowl threshold performance).
Brady's career playoff rating is 89. Borderline great play.
Joe? 95.6 Solidly great play.
Ratings Brady/Joe
00-49: 1/3
50-59: 3/0
60-69: 3/2
70-79: 6/1
---------------
80-89: 4/3
90-99: 5/2
100+: 12/12
Broken down as a percentage of their games played.
38% of the time Brady's play was sub par.
26% of the time, Joe's play was sub par.
27% of the time, Brady's play was good to great.
22% of the time Joe's play was good to great.
35% of the time Brady's play was exceptionally outstanding.
52% of the time Joe's play was exceptionally outstanding.
So in a SB with Brady you're more likely to get a sub par performance than an exceptional one overall.
You stand a better than 50% chance to see the exceptional with Joe.
Looking at the playoffs:
A great qb is having a bad day if his rating falls under 90 (pro bowl threshold performance).
Brady's career playoff rating is 89. Borderline great play.
Joe? 95.6 Solidly great play.
Ratings Brady/Joe
00-49: 1/3
50-59: 3/0
60-69: 3/2
70-79: 6/1
---------------
80-89: 4/3
90-99: 5/2
100+: 12/12
Broken down as a percentage of their games played.
38% of the time Brady's play was sub par.
26% of the time, Joe's play was sub par.
27% of the time, Brady's play was good to great.
22% of the time Joe's play was good to great.
35% of the time Brady's play was exceptionally outstanding.
52% of the time Joe's play was exceptionally outstanding.
So in a SB with Brady you're more likely to get a sub par performance than an exceptional one overall.
You stand a better than 50% chance to see the exceptional with Joe.
The Berean
Well-known member
A lot of Joe Montana talk in this thread. Just a side note, Joe had his choke jobs as well. They just didn't happen in the Super Bowl. His most imfamous choke job was in 1987. That 1987 49ers team is one of the greatest 49er teams of all time. But they didn't reach the Super Bowl even though they were the favorites so the team is completey forgotten. Here is how dominant the 1987 49ers were.
49ers Top-10 Pt. Diff.
1984- 248
1948- 247
1994- 207
1987- 206
1995- 199
1992- 195
1989- 189
1949- 189
1993- 178
1991- 151
Now the 1987 team only played 15 games (going 13-2 W-L) due to a one week strike by the players. Had the 1987 team played a full schedule they would have likely vaulted past the 1994 team. In the 49ers last three games they outscored their opponents 147-19. The team had five Pro-Bowlers including Joe and Jerry Rice. The team looked like a jaugernaut. They played the Vikings in the divisional round at home. The Vikings were an 8-7 W-L team with a point differential of +1. Yes, +1. The Vikings backed into the playoffs by losing three of their last four regular season games. This game had BLOWOUT written all over it. And Joe Montana pulled the biggest choke job of his career. Joe was absolutely useless in this game. He was so bad that Bill Walsh benched Joe in favor of Steve Young. Now, mind you, at this point in time Steve Young was not yet STEVE YOUNG, Hall of Fame QB. He was in just his third year in the NFL, his first with the 49ers. He spent the first two seasons with the Bucs posting a 56.9 and 65.5 passer rating. Young was a nobody in 1987. Yet he replaced Joe Montana in this playoff game. That's how awful Joe was. The Vikings jumped out to a 20-3 lead at halftime and never looked back, winning 36-24. This is one of the greatest upsets in NFL playoff history.
49ers Top-10 Pt. Diff.
1984- 248
1948- 247
1994- 207
1987- 206
1995- 199
1992- 195
1989- 189
1949- 189
1993- 178
1991- 151
Now the 1987 team only played 15 games (going 13-2 W-L) due to a one week strike by the players. Had the 1987 team played a full schedule they would have likely vaulted past the 1994 team. In the 49ers last three games they outscored their opponents 147-19. The team had five Pro-Bowlers including Joe and Jerry Rice. The team looked like a jaugernaut. They played the Vikings in the divisional round at home. The Vikings were an 8-7 W-L team with a point differential of +1. Yes, +1. The Vikings backed into the playoffs by losing three of their last four regular season games. This game had BLOWOUT written all over it. And Joe Montana pulled the biggest choke job of his career. Joe was absolutely useless in this game. He was so bad that Bill Walsh benched Joe in favor of Steve Young. Now, mind you, at this point in time Steve Young was not yet STEVE YOUNG, Hall of Fame QB. He was in just his third year in the NFL, his first with the 49ers. He spent the first two seasons with the Bucs posting a 56.9 and 65.5 passer rating. Young was a nobody in 1987. Yet he replaced Joe Montana in this playoff game. That's how awful Joe was. The Vikings jumped out to a 20-3 lead at halftime and never looked back, winning 36-24. This is one of the greatest upsets in NFL playoff history.
He did. I noted the ratios in my last, but beyond the SB, in all the playoff games he was a part of, more than half the time his rating was over 100...which is just unprecedented for anyone with that many playoff starts.
Last edited:
lain:Tom Brady has been playing lights out since Randy Moss. He was mediocre when they won 3 in 4 seasons. Yes, mediocre. About as good as Jay Cutler. So now the GOAT is determined by 2 of the last 3 and not 5? Shaping the evidence to fit your argument is best left to liberals.
Last edited:
All NFL QBs except one loses in the playoff every year. It was what he did on the games biggest stage. How many times have we seen Hall of Fame QBs wilt like a wet towel? Elway, Marino, Kelly...Newton-not HOF yet. The pressure cooker is the litmus test. Not the win or loss, how he played. When Elway and the Broncos beat Green Bay, he was below mediocre with a rating of 51.3.
I should point out that Brady played really good in those first three Super Bowls. So he gets that credit. 2 of the games he was lights out good. Like Bradshaw.
edit: How could I forget Fran Tarkenton. He was Manning and Marino rolled into one for the kids. And he bombed in his 2 games.
Last edited:
He was terrific, though he played like a back up getting to the second one and Adam is the only reason he had the opportunity to play it.
But if we're going to play the "Hey, here's a game where Joe stank it up" card, in 2009, Brady's one and done performance against the Ravens was right there, as he threw for 154 yds, 2 tds and 3 picks to post a sizzling 49.1 quarterback rating.
And unlike Joe's rebound against Minnesota, when he met Baltimore again in 2011 Brady laid another, if less dramatic, egg, needing a team effort to get past Baltimore as he went 0 tds, 2 ints and a 57.5 rating.
The next year Baltimore sent him home again, as he posted a 1 td, 2 int and a 62.3 rating game.
But past the particular markers, Brady has an uneven playoff record, as I noted. He's slightly more likely to have a bad game than a good one, while Joe's unbelievable games are over half the resume.
And in the biggest game, Joe pulls away from Brady without much of a struggle.
“Tom Brady gets more respect from me – I’m telling you this because I’ve said this too many times publicly and I want to say this again publicly – to me, he might be the best quarterback that we’ve ever seen play this game,” Lewis said. “That’s factual.”
http://prod.www.ravens.clubs.nfl.co...h-Answer/d236b425-456e-4ece-a329-ddb48939ebf0
It's interesting, but as with Aikman, nothing in playing the game necessarily gives a player a better vantage on the subject. And you could say he has a vested interest in the assertion, since his regular defeat of "the greatest" can only boost his own self interest and sense of pride. Who wouldn't want to say they owned the best? I wonder who LT would lay claim to? And so on. Unlike the estimation of the moment or fashion, facts have a way of winning out in the end. The fact is that no one owned the biggest game in the NFL like Joe.
The Berean
Well-known member
It seems strange that QB is the one position in sports where the number of championships won is weighted so heavily in GOAT debates. Even in football when debating the GOAT among running backs, wide receceivers, linemen, linebackers, tight ends, the number of championships won is not a major factor.
In baseball Yogi Berra won 10 World Series and played in four others. He even won three American League MVP awards. That's very impressive given that Yogi had Mickey Mantle as a teammate. And Yogi was a catcher, the "QB of the baseball diamond". Yet, Yogi is only considered among the greatest catchers and certainly no one believes that Yogi is the greatest baseball player ever.
In baseball Yogi Berra won 10 World Series and played in four others. He even won three American League MVP awards. That's very impressive given that Yogi had Mickey Mantle as a teammate. And Yogi was a catcher, the "QB of the baseball diamond". Yet, Yogi is only considered among the greatest catchers and certainly no one believes that Yogi is the greatest baseball player ever.
The other skill positions don't have the impact or longevity, I suppose. And when you get to Montana, Marino, Starr, Favre, Brady, Peyton, etc., it gets hard to separate them without considering their impact on the game and their teams.
Montana was like Jordan, to my mind. You could root against them, hate their team, but you wanted to see them play and you respected what they were even while you pulled for them to lose to your guys. I think that's one thing that hurts Brady. The public doesn't feel that way about him outside of New England, by and large.
I love Yogi, but baseball doesn't really have a dominant position like football. Atlanta had three of the greatest pitchers of an era and won one championship, because the bats were soft for the Braves.
We judge basketball by championships and scoring, largely, which is why Michael is at the top of his sport instead of a couple of dominant centers.
All things being impressive it's a way to weed. You won't get to the SB without at least a very good one or one having an exceptional year. Multiple playoff series and championships tend to parallel the position play, but it isn't without mitigation by eye or state, which is why you won't see many arguing Trent Dilfer was in the same league as Warren Moon or Dan Marino, even with the ring.
I've seen most of the greats play in the SB and while I always rooted against him, my eye test told me Joe was the best I'd ever seen at leading a team, even before I was mature enough in studying the game to get a fuller sense of why.
The Berean
Well-known member
I agree with most of what you day, TH, but a QB's success is heavily tied to having a great team around them. Without a strong offensive line a QB can only do so much. I'm not saying postseason success shouldn't count at all but it should be subordinate to regular season performance. All this talk about the QB GOAT there is hardly any mention of their regular season performance. Shouldn't that count for something as well? If Tom Brady had the exact same career regular season stats but he played his enitre career for the Detroit Lions whould anyone call him the GOAT? He'd likely still be a Hall of Famer, though, IMO.
I'm not sure I agree that baseball doesn't have a dominant position like QB. I think a QB's influence is somewhat overrated as a QB doesn't play defense or on special teams. Yogi Berra played offense and defense which included leading the Yankee's pitching staff. Yogi was the leader on the ballfield. That is a lot of responsiblity. Granted a QB is at least nominally involved on every offensive play (passing vs handing off to a RB) while a batter in baseball doesn't bat every inning and usually only has 4-5 at bats per game.
As for those great Braves teams they were an awsome dyansty. Only winning one World Series clearly hurts their legacy. But from 1991-2004 they had a .606 winning percentage which is 98 wins over a full season. To field on average a 98-win team for 15 seasons is incredible. Baseball's extended playoff system makes it much harder to win the World Series. There is so much luck involved. Nine times the Braves had the best record in the National League. Had the Braves had this great stretch before 1969 and they played in 9 World Series I highly doubt they only win one World Series. A lot of their struggles were due to their hitters slumping in the postseason. The Braves usually had really good offenses during their run but just couldn't get it done in the postseason.
I'm not sure I agree that baseball doesn't have a dominant position like QB. I think a QB's influence is somewhat overrated as a QB doesn't play defense or on special teams. Yogi Berra played offense and defense which included leading the Yankee's pitching staff. Yogi was the leader on the ballfield. That is a lot of responsiblity. Granted a QB is at least nominally involved on every offensive play (passing vs handing off to a RB) while a batter in baseball doesn't bat every inning and usually only has 4-5 at bats per game.
As for those great Braves teams they were an awsome dyansty. Only winning one World Series clearly hurts their legacy. But from 1991-2004 they had a .606 winning percentage which is 98 wins over a full season. To field on average a 98-win team for 15 seasons is incredible. Baseball's extended playoff system makes it much harder to win the World Series. There is so much luck involved. Nine times the Braves had the best record in the National League. Had the Braves had this great stretch before 1969 and they played in 9 World Series I highly doubt they only win one World Series. A lot of their struggles were due to their hitters slumping in the postseason. The Braves usually had really good offenses during their run but just couldn't get it done in the postseason.
Last edited:
I wouldn't really disagree with that. I might weight it differently, but I've never discounted any success on the field. And I've seen more than a few qbs wasted on teams that just weren't going anywhere.
I agree. I think he's self-apparently a rare commodity. The eye tells you he's special if you watch the game seriously. And if Marino had never made the SB I'd have recognized the rarity of his gifts.
I've witnessed average teams make the SB with a dominant qb. I've never seen a pitcher or a dominant bat manage that. I don't think the nature of the sport lends itself to that level concentrated impact.
But the special teams job has, historically, been not to lose the game or to set up decent field position. The qb play, at a high level, is comparable to having a great defense. So you can have Brady and a so-so, non pro-bowl talent level around him, with an okay defense. He's going to make the playoffs. He's single handedly worth a decent defense or better. The offense goes through and is productive by virtue of his prowess. No pitcher or hitter does that. A point guard in the NBA can come close to that, though the shooting guard carries the romance.
I think given most people watch baseball for the contest between the pitcher and the hitter, no other position is going to secure the attention and appreciation of those two and that makes it practically impossible to see it the same way for most fans, and probably all casual fans.
Completely agree. They're underrated, but functionally the Bills of baseball, except they got a win instead of a wide right, to demand a different level of respect. :cheers:
- Status