View single post by yellowdog
 Posted: Thu Feb 2nd, 2012 10:52 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic

Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3822
stingmark wrote: BayouBoogie wrote:
stingmark wrote:
Married Jo wrote:
Even if he wins Sunday, Brady is 3rd out of the 3 because he lost one..Terry and Joe never did.

This too.

I can't get that logic at all. Going 18-0 on the way to losing in the last minute of a great Super Bowl is worse than losing in the playoffs and never making the Super Bowl at all?? :?

True. However, any way you slice it, Brady has a loss in the sb, whereas the other 2 do not. 18-0 or not, Brady didnt win. When/if they lose on SS, he'll then be 3-2 in would he be considered " the best evah" w/2 sb losses, and others who are undefeated in sbs, wouldnt be ranked higher/ better? Hell, if he loses again, Aikmen would be " better" than Brady imo, why? Aikmen has same amnt of rings, and no sb losses.

so the fact that Brady got to one more Superbowl than the others doesn't count?  Even though he lost?  And he has gotten to the Superbowl nearly 50% of the time he has played.  I'm not even convinced he is better than Montana was, but I also don't think you can compare decades.  The fact that he and his team made it five times to the Superbowl when parity is at it's highest and dominant teams are becoming a thing of the past, gives him a pretty high pedigree. 

Frankly, the QB is arguably the leader of the team (tell Trent Dilfer that), but whether the team wins or loses the Superbowl is generally because of the team's play and not just the QB.  Brady may have been involved in one loss at a Superbowl, but it wasn't due to a sub par performance on his part.  Teams win Superbowls, not QBs.   Hard to blame Brady for allowing David Tyree to make that catch with his helmet to essentially seal the deal for the Giants. 

"It's a Dog Eat Dog World"