Sports Talk 2018: Lebron to Brady and Everything in Between

[Town Heretic]

Brady was 18-0 with Moss until that fluke of a game.

It wasn't a fluke. He lost.

Brady with that historic power house threw for 266 yds, 1 td and an 82.5 rating. He played a better game without Moss the second time around, and still lost.

Bill's record without Brady is less than .500

Brady's record without Bill? Zilch.

Brady went down for a year and Bill won 11 games with the back up.

Bill basically had to come into his own, the way most athletes and coaches do. When he got things the way he wanted them, the results followed.

Montana and Rice only really had 6 full seasons together. All of Rice's big numbers came with Young at QB.

Well, yards for sure. They were more balanced with Montana under center. Jerry had his best per catch with Joe, but with Young they targeted him much more and threw more downfield. So yards went up all over.

 

[tetelestai]

Bill Belichick's record without Tom Brady:

51-57

 

[tetelestai]

Brady's record without Bill?

We'll never know.

Brady with Bill Walsh? Maybe 10 Super Bowl rings.

 

[tetelestai]

Brady went down for a year and Bill won 11 games with the back up.

Bradshaw broke his collarbone in week 4 of 1976, and then Noll won 9 straight with a backup.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Noll did not do well without Bradshaw, and Bilichick is under .500 without Brady.

 

[Town Heretic]

Bill Belichick's record without Tom Brady:

51-57

Tom without Bill: 0 wins

Bill learned what he wanted to do while being ham strung in a handful of years in the woeful Browns organization. He went to New England, where he inherited the wrong qb for what he wanted, fixed the team and started winning.

You have to look at what he was winning with in Brady early. Hint: Tom wasn't that good at first. Not bad, and good for the limited role Bill had in mind early, but that's about it. Tom's first year his playoff rating was 77. That's backup territory. But the team got him to the SB, where he threw for under a buck fifty and all of 1 td in the win.

That was Bill winning in spite of having a qb still figuring out the position. Brady's first three years were solid in the regular season, but not really at pro bowl levels. 85 ish, which is good, not great. They went 34 and 14 anyway.

Then he starts playing great. But in 2009, after he'd reached loftier heights, he ran into a defense in the playoffs that would make the Steelers proud.

In that playoff game Brady went 23/42, for 154 yds, 2 td, 3 ints and a 49.1 rating...it happens, even to the great ones.

 

[Town Heretic]

Bradshaw broke his collarbone in week 4 of 1976, and then Noll won 9 straight with a backup.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Nine isn't eleven, but the point I was making is that Bill without Brady, since he put New England together, has looked a lot like it does with him.

Noll did not do well without Bradshaw, and Bilichick is under .500 without Brady.

Actually a bit of fudging there though. We saw Noll after he'd formed his Steelers and without Bradshaw. Bill put this team together and we haven't seen him without Brady, except in glimpses. And those glimpses look a lot like the Pats with Brady.

Look, a great qb is going to make a team better. No question about it. What I'm noting is that Tom hasn't showed us he's more than a perfect fit for a system. He hasn't gone elsewhere and won, the way Peyton did. The way Montana did. He hasn't played great under other coaches, the way a number of all-time qbs have.

It's not that I dislike Brady, or that I don't think he's great. No one has been as good for as long as him. But part of the reason for that is the rules changes. You'll see his records fall to some of the youngsters coming up with more physical talent and the same rules he helped shape and took advantage of.

 

[tetelestai]

You'll see his records fall to some of the youngsters coming up with more physical talent

No way!

Brady has more Super Bowl starts than any other two QB's combined. He has more Super Bowl wins than any franchise.

Brady has more playoff wins than any other two QB's combined.

Think of all the postseason wins Bradshaw & Montana had in the 70's, 80's, and 90's....Now add them together, and Brady has the same as both of them.

It's not that I dislike Brady

You're a Montana/Peyton fan. Add both their Super Bowl wins together, and Brady has more. Add all their post-season wins combined, and Brady equals it (and is not done).

No way in your lifetime will you see Brady's records fall to a "youngster".

Gretzky's career point total is almost 1,000 points more than everyone else. Jerry Rice's reception yards is over 6,000 from everyone else.

In your lifetime, you will never see Gretzky's, Rice's, or Brady's records broken.

 

[Town Heretic]

No way!

Yes way.

Brady has more Super Bowl starts than any other two QB's combined. He has more Super Bowl wins than any franchise.

Oh, you're back to team accomplishments. Well, that will be a harder one to fall to be sure, but Graham went seven out of ten with Cleveland. That was the SB before the SB, so...anyway, I was thinking of play at position.

Think of all the postseason wins Bradshaw & Montana had in the 70's, 80's, and 90's....Now add them together, and Brady has the same as both of them.

Shortened careers, comparatively, because the rules beat you to death. Your body was older sooner. It will be hard to find a team that will dominate like that because you need an all-time great coach and an all-time great qb. That's a tough order.

But it will happen. The only question is how long it will take.

You're a Montana/Peyton fan.

No, I never rooted for Joe. I did for Peyton, so you're half right. I'm also a Celtics fan, but I think Magic is the best point I've ever seen.

Add both their Super Bowl wins together, and Brady has more. Add all their post-season wins combined, and Brady equals it (and is not done).

Put either in Brady's place and they do better. Joe played better than either of them under the pressure of the biggest game. It's not disputable. Peyton was a coach on the field. Unitas but better. Not as athletic as Tom, but better from the neck up. His biggest problem was that he had too much to make up for with his team and I think it created problems for him in the long term. Young or Rodgers are better in literally every way at position. They might well do better than any of the other names I've just thrown out.

No way in your lifetime will you see Brady's records fall to a "youngster".

People thought Montana was untouchable...I think they're still right, but there's an investment in the media to find and crown the next guy, to find an argument for him. I remember when Tom won his first (with me rooting for him and his--I've always been an AFC guy) and the talking heads immediately went to, "A SB this early? Will he challenge Montana?" And that, mind you, after he'd just thrown for all of a buck fifty and one td to win by a fg.

If Mahomes finds a worthy successor to Reed and keeps having years like he just did he'll own everything. But time will tell. Is he Marino with help or is he a flash in the pan? And how much competition will he have? It matters.

Gretzky's career point total is almost 1,000 points more than everyone else. Jerry Rice's reception yards is over 6,000 from everyone else.

Gretzky...hard to imagine it. Rice...it really depends on a lot of things. We live in the pinball era, so it's possible.

In your lifetime, you will never see Gretzky's, Rice's, or Brady's records broken.

Again, on quarterbacks, I don't see team wins as an individual record, though I note it. Quarterbacks will get credit for games where their play was awful, and the odd game where they play great and lose anyway. I take position play within games as important and I recognize that play in the biggest games tells you something, but cumulative team accomplishments just shouldn't be confused with individual accomplishment, which is why no one will ever say Trent Dilfer is a better qb than Dan Marino.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Oh, you're back to team accomplishments.

What if the 49ers "team" had gone 2-2 in their first four Super Bowls?

Would you still say that Montana was the greatest NFL quarterback of all time?

 

[Town Heretic]

What if the 49ers "team" had gone 2-2 in their first four Super Bowls?

Would you still say that Montana was the greatest NFL quarterback of all time?

It wouldn't be possible for him to play as well as he did with a team that was capable of getting to that point and go 2-2.

I looked at ever box score from every SB to see how often a qb lost with a 100 plus rating at position. The answer is 6 times out of 53. All but one of those happened in the rules altered modern era.

Staubach lost to Bradshaw, though Terry out played him at position in the game. Both qbs played great games.

Delhomme outplayed Brady and lost anyway.

Warner outplayed Roethlisberger and lost anyway.

Wilson outplayed Brady and lost anyway.

Ryan outplayed Brady and lost anyway.

Brady outplayed Foles but lost anyway.

This makes another case against Brady or for his team/coach. 3 of his rings came to Tom despite his being outplayed at his position. 1 time he outplayed the opposition and lost.

Here are the losers:

1. Dawson, 80.0
2. Lamonica 71.7
3. Unitas 42.0
4. Kapp 52.6
5. Morton 34.1
6. Greise 51.7
7. Kilmer 19.6
8. Tarkenton 87.9
9. Tarkenton 14.1
10. Staubach 77.8
11. Tarkenton 52.7
12. Weese 47.9
13. Staubach 100.4 (winner: Bradshaw 119.2)
14. Ferragamo 70.7
15. Jaworski 49.3
16. Anderson 96.2
17. Woodley 50.0
18. Theismann 45.3
19. Marino 66.o
20. Grogan 57.2
21. Elway 83.8
22. Elway 36.8
23. Esiason 46.1
24. Elway 19.4
25. Kelly 81.5
26. Kelly 44.8
27. Reich 60.4
28. Kelly 67.1
29. Humphries 56.1
30. O'Donnell 51.3
31. Bledsoe 44.6
32. Favre 91.0
33. Chandler 47.2
34. McNair 77.8
35. Collins 7.1
36. Warner 78.3
37. Gannon 48.9
38. Delhomme 113.6 (winner: Brady 100.5)
39. McNabb 75.4
40. Hasselbeck 67.8
41. Grossman 68.3
42. Brady 82.5
43. Warner 112.3 (winner: Ben R. 93.2)
44. Manning 88.5
45. Ben 77.4
46. Brady 91.1
47. Kaepernick 91.7
48. Manning 73.5
49. Wilson 110.6 (winner: Brady 101.1)
50. Newton 55.4
51. Ryan 144.1 (winner: Brady 95.2)
52. Brady 115.4 (winner: Foles 106.1)
53. Goff 57.9

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It wouldn't be possible for him to play as well as he did with a team that was capable of getting to that point and go 2-2.

It depends on the opponent. If the 49ers were playing the 70's Steelers with their Steel Curtain and their other Hall of Famers on offense they could have easily lost two Super Bowl games and if you deny that I doubt if you ever saw the Steelers of that era play.

So if the 49ers lost two of the Super Bowls in which Montana was the quarterback would you still say that Montana is the greatest NFL quarterback of all time?

 

[The Berean]

It depends on the opponent. If the 49ers were playing the 70's Steelers with their Steel Curtain and their other Hall of Famers on offense they could have easily lost two Super Bowl games and if you deny that I doubt if you ever saw the Steelers of that era play.

So if the 49ers lost two of the Super Bowls in which Montana was the quarterback would you still say that Montana is the greatest NFL quarterback of all time?

The 49ers almost lost to the Bengals in Super Bowl XXIII. There was a play in the fourth quarter where Montana throw a really bad pass into the end zone that Bengals cornerback Lewis Billups caught for an easy interception but he dropped the ball. The pass was intended for John Taylor. This missed interception was HUGE! It would have the stopped the 49ers from scoring on the drive and tying the game which they did on the very next play. Had the ball been intercepted who knows how the game would have played out but the chances of the 49ers losing would have increased dramatically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJFOBI1cZaM&feature=player_embedded

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The 49ers almost lost to the Bengals in Super Bowl XXIII. There was a play in the fourth quarter where Montana throw a really bad pass into the end zone that Bengals cornerback Lewis Billups caught for an easy interception but he dropped the ball. The pass was intended for John Taylor. This missed interception was HUGE! It would have the stopped the 49ers from scoring on the drive and tying the game which they did on the very next play. Had the ball been intercepted who knows how the game would have played out but the chances of the 49ers losing would have increased dramatically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJFOBI1cZaM&feature=player_embedded

Thanks!

Montana was lucky that his Super Bowl record was 4-0 instead of 3-1 because he threw a pass into the end zone which should have been intercepted.

I wonder if Town Heretic would still claim that Montana was the best quarterback in NFL history if that pass had been intercepted and the 49ers lost that Super Bowl due to Montana's bad decision and throw?

 

[The Berean]

Thanks!

Montana was lucky that his Super Bowl record was 4-0 instead of 3-1 because he threw a pass into the end zone which should have been intercepted.

I wonder if Town Heretic would still claim that Montana was the best quarterback in NFL history if that pass had been intercepted and the 49ers lost that Super Bowl due to Montana's bad decision and throw?

And on the opposite end what if Jackie Smith catches Roger Staubach's pass in Super Bowl XIII? The Cowboys were down by seven points and had to settle for a FG. The Cowboys lost by four points. If Smith would have caught the TD perhaps the Cowboys go on to win their third Super Bowl of the decade and deny the Steelers back-to-back Super Bowl titles and would have given the Cowboys back-to-back Super Bowl titles instead. If Jackie Smith catches this ball the legacy of two great dynasties would have been greatly affected.

 

[Town Heretic]

It depends on the opponent.

It depends on the play. It depends on the weather. And even a little luck (sorry Indy). But great teams and players tend to find ways to come out on top when it matters most. If we use SB play as the weather vane for position value, Joe is the gold standard.

If the 49ers were playing the 70's Steelers with their Steel Curtain and their other Hall of Famers on offense they could have easily lost two Super Bowl games and if you deny that I doubt if you ever saw the Steelers of that era play.

A great, great team. You can watch them play today even. It would have been one heck of a series. Who knows? I'd have paid to see it.

So if the 49ers lost two of the Super Bowls in which Montana was the quarterback would you still say that Montana is the greatest NFL quarterback of all time?

This has, as questions go, all the value of, "And if he played with one arm...or if there was an earthquake." The better question is, what really happened and why do I believe a quarterback I never rooted for in a conference I've never rooted for is the GOAT.

And the answer to those have been given and supported.

The 49ers almost lost to the Bengals in Super Bowl XXIII.

I was almost elected president. . . then they counted the votes.

Seriously though, how did the Niners end up on top in that contest again? Fun game. Joe went for 357, 2 tds, 0 ints and a rating of 115.2 in that one.

There was a play in the fourth quarter where Montana throw a really bad pass into the end zone that Bengals cornerback Lewis Billups caught for an easy interception but he dropped the ball.

There are almost always plays that could have gone another way. Sometimes they go the other way and they still don't (sorry New Orleans). There's a reason cornerbacks aren't playing wide receiver too.

The pass was intended for John Taylor. This missed interception was HUGE!

And if Joe didn't move them down the field from his own 8 yard line to the opposing end zone in under three minutes they lose.

And if someone had set live bears loose on the field.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

A great, great team. You can watch them play today even. It would have been one heck of a series. Who knows? I'd have paid to see it.

Again, if the 49ers were playing the 70's Steelers with their Steel Curtain and their other Hall of Famers on offense they could have easily lost two Super Bowl games. Do you deny that?

And if they lost those two games would you still say that Montana was the greatest quarterback in NFL history?

 

[Town Heretic]

Again, if the 49ers were playing the...

I don't even begin to address it beyond noting it would be great game to watch.

And if they lost those two games would you still say that Montana was the greatest quarterback in NFL history?

You keep asking nearly impossible questions. I illustrated why by posting the losing quarterback rankings in every SB. Because for me to think the same about Joe he'd have to play as well as he did when he won and still lose.

The only time the losing quarterback didn't play poorly both played exceptionally. And that happened once in Montana's era, five times in the rules altered modern era, where it's just plain easier to put up numbers and good looking stats in a game...which is why almost half the starting qbs last year had a season average rating over 100.

The truth is Montana did what he did and it's not standing on the shoulders of a great turtle or a what if. You can what if any qb into greatness or cautionary status. It is what it is.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The fact of the matter is that if the 49ers had to play two of their Super Bowl games against the 70's Steelers they might have lost those two games. And if they did lose those games Montana would not be considered the best quarterback of all time.

So it could be said that Montana just won the luck of the draw. Not necessarily the best but the luckiest!

 

[The Berean]

It depends on the play. It depends on the weather. And even a little luck (sorry Indy). But great teams and players tend to find ways to come out on top when it matters most. If we use SB play as the weather vane for position value, Joe is the gold standard.


A great, great team. You can watch them play today even. It would have been one heck of a series. Who knows? I'd have paid to see it.


This has, as questions go, all the value of, "And if he played with one arm...or if there was an earthquake." The better question is, what really happened and why do I believe a quarterback I never rooted for in a conference I've never rooted for is the GOAT.

And the answer to those have been given and supported.


I was almost elected president. . . then they counted the votes.

Seriously though, how did the Niners end up on top in that contest again? Fun game. Joe went for 357, 2 tds, 0 ints and a rating of 115.2 in that one.


There are almost always plays that could have gone another way. Sometimes they go the other way and they still don't (sorry New Orleans). There's a reason cornerbacks aren't playing wide receiver too.


And if Joe didn't move them down the field from his own 8 yard line to the opposing end zone in under three minutes they lose.

And if someone had set live bears loose on the field.

Come on, Town, why the dodge? A simple question for you. If Billups had held on to the ball and the Bengals defeated the 49ers in Super Bowl XXIII would that have greatly affected Joe Montana's legacy in your opinion?

 

[Town Heretic]

Come on, Town, why the dodge? A simple question for you. If Billups had held on to the ball and the Bengals defeated the 49ers in Super Bowl XXIII would that have greatly affected Joe Montana's legacy in your opinion?

It's not a dodge. It's just a homer sort of argument to get into. What if someone didn't drop a ball earlier? What if a defensive holding call hadn't been made? What if the guy gets his hands on it and there's an offensive turnover on the next play? You can do that sort of thing to death.

I enjoy hypotheticals when it involves the potential for more, but when it's used to detract from a thing it just doesn't interest me, feels more like a grab by someone who wants to pull someone else down, either to elevate yet another party or just to drag him. Either way, it's a meh to me.

When I look at Joe, I don't see a play, I see a series of plays, a series of Super Bowls, and the rule for his play is impossible to miss...unless you mean to.