WowBB Forums Home 
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > Sports Talk > If Pats Win, Pure Speculation...Best 4-Time QB Champ

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi  
AuthorPost
Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9688
Status: 
Offline
If the Pats do win their 4th SB this Sunday, in your opinion who is the best QB who has won 4 Super Bowls.

You will have Tom Brady, Joe Montana and Terry Bradshaw to pick from on this list.

In my opinion, Bradshaw is out immediately, because most of his Super Bowl years relied on a heavy defense and running to bring home the trophies.  Although, if you look at the last SBs, Bradshaw did wing it alot more and the passing attack became a key part of the Steelers success.

This is a real tough one to answer for me. 

Montana was more mobile than Brady.  He also had one of the best receivers, if not the best receiver, to ever play the game in Jerry Rice. 

Montana has Walsh....Brady has Belichik. 

Montana had the system west-coast offense put into place by Walsh, but Brady is like a surgeon.  He finds that one weakness or crack in a defense and then exploits it and turning it into points on the board.

I cannot remember how Montana acted under pressure.  I do not think he got rattled easily.  This is a flaw I see with Brady....you put some pressure on him and it will throw his game off.

I don't why, other than I like watching Brady take apart a defense piece by piece, but I am taking Brady in this match-up.

Who is your pick and what is your opinion?


Married Jo



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Hickory NC
Posts: 6755
Status: 
Online
Even if he wins Sunday, Brady is 3rd out of the 3 because he lost one..Terry and Joe never did.

Last edited on Thu Feb 2nd, 2012 09:23 pm by Married Jo

stingmark



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cop City, California USA
Posts: 9390
Status: 
Offline
Montana.......the best.

Im still amazed that a team w/the 31st ranked defense is in the sb.

IMO, deja vu all over again from 07, except that NEs D is shit. Im predicting the Pats go down again to the Giants.

stingmark



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cop City, California USA
Posts: 9390
Status: 
Offline
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.

tofu_chipmunk



Joined: Wed Aug 5th, 2009
Location: Suburban Fatlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 6706
Status: 
Offline
And Montana only had Rice for two of the Super Bowl wins.

BayouBoogie



Joined: Wed Oct 17th, 2007
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana USA
Posts: 6864
Status: 
Offline
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?? :?

Benlen



Joined: Sun Oct 21st, 2007
Location: Milpitas, California USA
Posts: 13271
Status: 
Offline
Joe is GOD.
last minute game winning drive
Zero ints in SB
First SB he had nothing to work with.

tofu_chipmunk



Joined: Wed Aug 5th, 2009
Location: Suburban Fatlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 6706
Status: 
Offline
Benlen wrote: First SB he had nothing to work with.
Who are you to question Freddie Solomon, Dwight Clark, Ricky Patton, and Earl Cooper?

Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9688
Status: 
Offline
Brady never really had any great receivers during his SB runs, did he?  The only ones that come to mind for me are Deion Branch and Troy Brown.

Benlen



Joined: Sun Oct 21st, 2007
Location: Milpitas, California USA
Posts: 13271
Status: 
Offline
tofu_chipmunk wrote:
Benlen wrote: First SB he had nothing to work with.
Who are you to question Freddie Solomon, Dwight Clark, Ricky Patton, and Earl Cooper?

Or Charlie Young,Mike Shumann,Lenvil Elliott, and an offensive line consisting of one tackle and 4 guards.

stingmark



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cop City, California USA
Posts: 9390
Status: 
Offline
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 sbs....how 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.

Last edited on Thu Feb 2nd, 2012 11:28 pm by stingmark

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
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 sbs....how 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. 

Principal_Raditch



Joined: Mon Feb 18th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 6844
Status: 
Offline
Brady has the hottest wife of all of them. It makes him the best.

BayouBoogie



Joined: Wed Oct 17th, 2007
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana USA
Posts: 6864
Status: 
Offline
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 sbs....how 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.


Sorry, but I don't consider losing in your 4th of 5 Super Bowls to be ANY kind of failure. Even if we weren't talking about an undefeated season ended on one of the biggest miracle plays in NFL history, I will never consider losing a tight Super Bowl to be something that actually lowers your status. I actually think that thinking is ludicrous.

The idea that one QB is better than another because he has the same amount of wins in fewer trips doesn't compute to me. Jim Kelly, Fran Tarkenton and Dan Marino are 0-8 in Super Bowls and I can name a slew of Super Bowl winners who aren't in their league.

Last edited on Fri Feb 3rd, 2012 02:36 am by BayouBoogie

HBF



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 17866
Status: 
Offline
Tough call. Montana had a very hard time with the Giants from 1985-90 in the playoffs though, going 0-3 against Belichick's D. The pts scored in those games: 0, 3, 12.



 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
I still lean toward Montana a little.  He played in an era where you could be much more physical on the defensive end and he was the best QB in the league for years.  I still contend had Montana played in his prime in today's NFL, he could've thrown for over 5500 yards in a season.

The Ultimate Sin
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Parts Unknown, Sri Lanka
Posts: 9859
Status: 
Offline
Married Jo wrote:
Even if he wins Sunday, Brady is 3rd out of the 3 because he lost one..Terry and Joe never did.

You are down grading him because he went to 5 SB's and the others only went to 4?

By that logic the Lions were more successful in the 90's than the Bills because they both won 0 SBs, but the Bills lost 4.

The Ultimate Sin
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Parts Unknown, Sri Lanka
Posts: 9859
Status: 
Offline
I like Brady better, but I give the slightest edge to Montana just on a gut feeling.

Terry is underrated as far as great QBs go. The perception seem to be he was the caretaker on a power running team with a dominating defense.

I think that was his job because that's what the Steelers needed to win. When they needed a big play he always seemed to be able to come through. My opinion on Bradshaw was the system/team kind of held him back, because the other components were good enough to win without his heroics.



 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
The Ultimate Sin wrote: I like Brady better, but I give the slightest edge to Montana just on a gut feeling.

Terry is underrated as far as great QBs go. The perception seem to be he was the caretaker on a power running team with a dominating defense.

I think that was his job because that's what the Steelers needed to win. When they needed a big play he always seemed to be able to come through. My opinion on Bradshaw was the system/team kind of held him back, because the other components were good enough to win without his heroics.

I'm sure an older Steelers fan would know better, but I feel like Bradshaw got better as he got older.  They really won their last 2 SBs on his arm.

clawmaster
Hall Of Famer
 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: The Bowels Of East Central Illinois
Posts: 48216
Status: 
Offline
nyhack56 wrote: The Ultimate Sin wrote: I like Brady better, but I give the slightest edge to Montana just on a gut feeling.

Terry is underrated as far as great QBs go. The perception seem to be he was the caretaker on a power running team with a dominating defense.

I think that was his job because that's what the Steelers needed to win. When they needed a big play he always seemed to be able to come through. My opinion on Bradshaw was the system/team kind of held him back, because the other components were good enough to win without his heroics.

I'm sure an older Steelers fan would know better, but I feel like Bradshaw got better as he got older.  They really won their last 2 SBs on his arm.

You are correct. Bradshaw almost lost his job to Joe Gilliam the first year The Steelers won the Super Bowl. He improved a ton once the Steelers won their first Super Bowl. But he's not in the class of Brady or Montana.

Brady or Montana is a tough call for the eras thing mentioned earlier. The rules are so much different now.

Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9688
Status: 
Offline
clawmaster wrote: nyhack56 wrote: The Ultimate Sin wrote: I like Brady better, but I give the slightest edge to Montana just on a gut feeling.

Terry is underrated as far as great QBs go. The perception seem to be he was the caretaker on a power running team with a dominating defense.

I think that was his job because that's what the Steelers needed to win. When they needed a big play he always seemed to be able to come through. My opinion on Bradshaw was the system/team kind of held him back, because the other components were good enough to win without his heroics.

I'm sure an older Steelers fan would know better, but I feel like Bradshaw got better as he got older.  They really won their last 2 SBs on his arm.

You are correct. Bradshaw almost lost his job to Joe Gilliam the first year The Steelers won the Super Bowl. He improved a ton once the Steelers won their first Super Bowl. But he's not in the class of Brady or Montana.

Brady or Montana is a tough call for the eras thing mentioned earlier. The rules are so much different now.


The league was changing as did the Steelers in their concept of offensive philosophy. 


There running game attempts declined as the dynasty years progressed. In 1979 they were almost at a 50% balance between running and passing.

I think the big rule changes that greatly affected the passing game occurred in 1978.

Last edited on Fri Feb 3rd, 2012 03:59 am by Papa Voo

BayouBoogie



Joined: Wed Oct 17th, 2007
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana USA
Posts: 6864
Status: 
Offline
The Ultimate Sin wrote:


I think that was his job because that's what the Steelers needed to win. When they needed a big play he always seemed to be able to come through. My opinion on Bradshaw was the system/team kind of held him back, because the other components were good enough to win without his heroics.


I agree. I put Troy Aikman in a similar light.

Benlen



Joined: Sun Oct 21st, 2007
Location: Milpitas, California USA
Posts: 13271
Status: 
Offline
HBF wrote:
Tough call. Montana had a very hard time with the Giants from 1985-90 in the playoffs though, going 0-3 against Belichick's D. The pts scored in those games: 0, 3, 12.

The 17-3 game Montana had back surgury that year. Some say he came back too early. It was Montana's worst year.
Niners were lead by Jeff Kemp half the time.

The 49-3 game. It was a day everything went wrong.

The 15-13 game the Giants knocked out Montana (for two seasons). Roger Craig dropped in every Niner fans book when he fumbled. Didn't help when he blamed the blocking.

Benlen



Joined: Sun Oct 21st, 2007
Location: Milpitas, California USA
Posts: 13271
Status: 
Offline
1A. Montana
1B. Brady

Brady lead the Pats to Game winning FG's in two SBs
Montana had to drive 92 yards for a winning TD to win a SB.
You can't go wrong with either guy on your team.

tystates



Joined: Sun May 18th, 2008
Location: Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 405
Status: 
Offline
This is exactly why I want the Giants to win. Don't want to see Brady win a fourth.

clawmaster
Hall Of Famer
 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: The Bowels Of East Central Illinois
Posts: 48216
Status: 
Offline
tystates wrote: This is exactly why I want the Giants to win. Don't want to see Brady win a fourth.
The Giants really have a good chance to win. Their defensive line has been playing tremendous. TE Rob Gronkowski for the Pats is injured with an ankle sprain. He'll play but will not be at one hundred percent. Other than Brady, Gronkowski is the best offensive player New England has.

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
clawmaster wrote: tystates wrote: This is exactly why I want the Giants to win. Don't want to see Brady win a fourth.
The Giants really have a good chance to win. Their defensive line has been playing tremendous. TE Rob Gronkowski for the Pats is injured with an ankle sprain. He'll play but will not be at one hundred percent. Other than Brady, Gronkowski is the best offensive player New England has.


and that's a really great point.  If Gronk is not 100% or even close to it and the Pats lose, how does that reflect negatively on Brady's all-time status?  and if he wins without a healthy Gronk, then what?

DaNkinator



Joined: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 6116
Status: 
Offline
Papa Voo wrote: Brady never really had any great receivers during his SB runs, did he?  The only ones that come to mind for me are Deion Branch and Troy Brown.

I'm not sure if you're counting his last SB run, but he did have Moss that year and it was a pretty good year for the two. 

I still lean toward Montana a little. He played in an era where you could be much more physical on the defensive end and he was the best QB in the league for years. I still contend had Montana played in his prime in today's NFL, he could've thrown for over 5500 yards in a season.
I'm with Hack here.  With so many rules in place that basically protects the receivers and the QB's from taking hardly any physical hits, they're bound to get more yards and more favorable calls.  Montana didn't have it nearly as easy as Brady does.  Hell, watch Brady now...almost every time a defender gets to him and lays a hand on him, he's crying for a flag to be thrown.  And it sure seems more often than not, he gets it.

beejmi
The Big Kahuna


Joined: Sat Oct 13th, 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 41543
Status: 
Offline
Prefer Brady to all of the above. We're talking about an offense that has put up 500+ points a season three out of the past five years.

martini
Sunny's White Knight


Joined: Fri Aug 13th, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 3884
Status: 
Offline
I gotta give it to Montana. Those 49ers were somewhat dominant. The Pats have barely gotten by in some of the Super Bowls.

Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9688
Status: 
Offline
I sided with Brady in this debate, but there has not been a bigger whiner to play the QB position, either.  He is always yipping about being hit late, being hit below the knees, etc.  I guess he is just protecting his assets.

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
Papa Voo wrote: I sided with Brady in this debate, but there has not been a bigger whiner to play the QB position, either.  He is always yipping about being hit late, being hit below the knees, etc.  I guess he is just protecting his assets.

I call that working the officials

BayouBoogie



Joined: Wed Oct 17th, 2007
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana USA
Posts: 6864
Status: 
Offline
yellowdog wrote:
Papa Voo wrote: I sided with Brady in this debate, but there has not been a bigger whiner to play the QB position, either.  He is always yipping about being hit late, being hit below the knees, etc.  I guess he is just protecting his assets.

I call that working the officials


That's exactly what he's doing. Most of the greats do it because it works. Jordan was the King.

Road Warrior Yajuta



Joined: Sat Jul 3rd, 2010
Location: D'Iberville, Ms, USA
Posts: 4798
Status: 
Offline
Monatna earned that first SB with a subpar team.  After that he captained a stacked team.  Brady annoys me but I have got to give him props.  He plays at a high level based on what he has.  He was a short to intermediate type QB when he had guys like Troy Brown.  He then worked the under with Welker and the deep ball with Moss.  Now he works the middle with his TEs and Welker.  He amazes me with his ability to elevate whatever type of receivers he has.

HBF



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 17866
Status: 
Offline
If the Giants D holds Brady again and the GMen win, do they get credit as one of the toughest D's of all-time for holding one of the "top two QB's ever" from winning either SB when they played?
Much like the Giants D of the mid-late '80's had Montana's number.

Think about it. I know they were a sieve this entire season and Fewell completely sucked balls, but if they do pull it off...........

The Hammer



Joined: Sat Nov 17th, 2007
Location: A Trailer Park Near You, North Carolina USA
Posts: 4518
Status: 
Offline
Terry Bradshaw end of discussion.

DaNkinator



Joined: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 6116
Status: 
Offline
BayouBoogie wrote: yellowdog wrote:
Papa Voo wrote: I sided with Brady in this debate, but there has not been a bigger whiner to play the QB position, either.  He is always yipping about being hit late, being hit below the knees, etc.  I guess he is just protecting his assets.

I call that working the officials


That's exactly what he's doing. Most of the greats do it because it works. Jordan was the King.

Still makes him a fag.


tofu_chipmunk



Joined: Wed Aug 5th, 2009
Location: Suburban Fatlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 6706
Status: 
Offline
Fair or not, this game takes Brady out of the Bradshaw/Montana discussion and puts him in the Elway/Staubach discussion.  Of course, it's no mark of shame to be in either discussion.

silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1244
Status: 
Offline
tofu_chipmunk wrote:
Fair or not, this game takes Brady out of the Bradshaw/Montana discussion and puts him in the Elway/Staubach discussion.  Of course, it's no mark of shame to be in either discussion.

Elway is better than Bradshaw and so is Brady. Bradshaw is not a top 5 or even top 10 QB in league history.

stingmark



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cop City, California USA
Posts: 9390
Status: 
Offline
silentkiller wrote:
tofu_chipmunk wrote:
Fair or not, this game takes Brady out of the Bradshaw/Montana discussion and puts him in the Elway/Staubach discussion.  Of course, it's no mark of shame to be in either discussion.

Elway is better than Bradshaw and so is Brady. Bradshaw is not a top 5 or even top 10 QB in league history.


How so if Both have losses in the sb, and neither has 4 sb rings? Thats your opinion, wrong mind you, but your opinion. Elway is below .500 in the sb, how is he "better"? Explain.

Bradshaw/Montana are both undefeated in SBs. Hell, Aikmens better than Elway, more rings & more SB wins.

PeteF3

 

Joined: Thu Dec 6th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1476
Status: 
Offline
"Count the rings" is no less idiotic of an argument for football than it is for baseball. Dan Marino had chunks of various Super Bowl-winning QBs in his stool. Christ, Plunkett won 2 SBs and he wasn't in Marino's zip code.

silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1244
Status: 
Offline
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
tofu_chipmunk wrote:
Fair or not, this game takes Brady out of the Bradshaw/Montana discussion and puts him in the Elway/Staubach discussion.  Of course, it's no mark of shame to be in either discussion.

Elway is better than Bradshaw and so is Brady. Bradshaw is not a top 5 or even top 10 QB in league history.



Bradshaw/Montana are both undefeated in SBs. Hell, Aikmens better than Elway, more rings & more SB wins.


That's quite a foolish way of judging QBs since quarterbacks don't win titles, it's teams that win. Elway was better at every aspect of quarterbacking than both Aikman and Bradshaw and if he had great coaching and defense similar to those 2 he'd have a lot more titles.

stingmark



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cop City, California USA
Posts: 9390
Status: 
Offline
silentkiller wrote:
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
tofu_chipmunk wrote:
Fair or not, this game takes Brady out of the Bradshaw/Montana discussion and puts him in the Elway/Staubach discussion.  Of course, it's no mark of shame to be in either discussion.

Elway is better than Bradshaw and so is Brady. Bradshaw is not a top 5 or even top 10 QB in league history.



Bradshaw/Montana are both undefeated in SBs. Hell, Aikmens better than Elway, more rings & more SB wins.


That's quite a foolish way of judging QBs since quarterbacks don't win titles, it's teams that win. Elway was better at every aspect of quarterbacking than both Aikman and Bradshaw and if he had great coaching and defense similar to those 2 he'd have a lot more titles.


Elway did have great coaching, he went to 4 straight sbs, and lost all 4. Defense alone cant win titles, you need someone to put the ball in the ez. You just admitted Qbs dont win titles by themselves? True. So, Elway wouldnt.be "better than either", as you said, qbs cant win titles by themselves. Youve proven the point that Elway isnt better than either, w/that right there. Hes UNDER .500 in sbs, hes part of a team, it still goes on his record. I still dont see how anyone can claim a guy whos "UNDER .500 in SBs, is in any way "better than" 3 guys(Montana/Bradshaw/Aikmen)whove never lost in a sb? & who have more rings than him. That makes no sense. But, your opinion.

Last edited on Mon Feb 6th, 2012 05:42 am by stingmark

silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1244
Status: 
Offline
There's no point in discussing QB play with someone who thinks being undefeated in Super Bowls is what makes a QB better than another. I guess Jim Plunkett is better than Marino and Brady.

stingmark



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cop City, California USA
Posts: 9390
Status: 
Offline
silentkiller wrote:
There's no point in discussing QB play with someone who thinks being undefeated in Super Bowls is what makes a QB better than another. I guess Jim Plunkett is better than Marino and Brady.

No, you claimed Elway was better than 3 guys who have more rings than him, & then tried using some goofy logic to try to back up your point. By your logic, Jim McMahon should be ranked higher than Elway then, b/c McMahon won both of his sb ringsbefore Elway did.

Sorry to break it to you, biased or not, Elways not "better than": Montana/Bradshaw/Aikmen or Brady, fact. Stats prove that.

Hell, Ben the rapist is argueably better than Elway.

sek69



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posts: 5509
Status: 
Offline
stingmark wrote: silentkiller wrote:
There's no point in discussing QB play with someone who thinks being undefeated in Super Bowls is what makes a QB better than another. I guess Jim Plunkett is better than Marino and Brady.

No, you claimed Elway was better than 3 guys who have more rings than him, & then tried using some goofy logic to try to back up your point. By your logic, Jim McMahon should be ranked higher than Elway then, b/c McMahon won both of his sb ringsbefore Elway did.

Sorry to break it to you, biased or not, Elways not "better than": Montana/Bradshaw/Aikmen or Brady, fact. Stats prove that.

Hell, Ben the rapist is argueably better than Elway.


Considering he wears #7 because Elway was his hero as a kid, Ben would probably be the first to argue that.

I should know better than this, but it really should be pointed out that both "X has more rings than Y" and "X has lost less Super Bowls than Y" are pretty dumb units of measure. If for no other reason you get to the logical conclusion that Trent Dilfer is the greatest QB of all time because he has a 1.000 winning percentage in Super Bowls.


stingmark



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cop City, California USA
Posts: 9390
Status: 
Offline
sek69 wrote:
stingmark wrote: silentkiller wrote:
There's no point in discussing QB play with someone who thinks being undefeated in Super Bowls is what makes a QB better than another. I guess Jim Plunkett is better than Marino and Brady.

No, you claimed Elway was better than 3 guys who have more rings than him, & then tried using some goofy logic to try to back up your point. By your logic, Jim McMahon should be ranked higher than Elway then, b/c McMahon won both of his sb ringsbefore Elway did.

Sorry to break it to you, biased or not, Elways not "better than": Montana/Bradshaw/Aikmen or Brady, fact. Stats prove that.

Hell, Ben the rapist is argueably better than Elway.


Considering he wears #7 because Elway was his hero as a kid, Ben would probably be the first to argue that.

I should know better than this, but it really should be pointed out that both "X has more rings than Y" and "X has lost less Super Bowls than Y" are pretty dumb units of measure. If for no other reason you get to the logical conclusion that Trent Dilfer is the greatest QB of all time because he has a 1.000 winning percentage in Super Bowls.



In the same token, claiming that the reason why somones w/l record in the post season is solely based on having a "shitty defense", isnt a very valid excuse, imo either. Elway played in 5 SBs, winning 2, the same numbet of SBs Brady has played in, and Brady has 1 more win. Again, how that makes someone whos won less, "better" than a guy whos won more, doesnt make sense. just my opinion. Elway/Ben/Eli all on the same level, then theres another level, & then another level after that for guys like Montana/Bradshaw.

Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9688
Status: 
Offline
Yeah, my opinion of the Top 3 QBs that I have actually watched would probably be Brady, Marino and Montana. 

My next tier of QBs would be guys like Bradshaw, Fouts, etc. 

Elway has always been an enigma for me and where he ranks. 

I am currently in debates with people on the Steelers boards over the debate between Big Ben and Bradshaw.  Two different eras.......going by what I actually have seen......I still go with Bradshaw being the better QB. 


silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1244
Status: 
Offline
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
There's no point in discussing QB play with someone who thinks being undefeated in Super Bowls is what makes a QB better than another. I guess Jim Plunkett is better than Marino and Brady.

No, you claimed Elway was better than 3 guys who have more rings than him, & then tried using some goofy logic to try to back up your point. By your logic, Jim McMahon should be ranked higher than Elway then, b/c McMahon won both of his sb ringsbefore Elway did.

Sorry to break it to you, biased or not, Elways not "better than": Montana/Bradshaw/Aikmen or Brady, fact. Stats prove that.

Hell, Ben the rapist is argueably better than Elway.


Stats prove what? Elway has more touchdowns, completions, passing yards, running yards, just about every stat imaginable over those 3 and he dominated for a longer time than Aikman and Bradshaw. Just saying count the rings completely ignores everything else and is stupid. I guess again Jim Plunkett is better than Marino, Brady etc. and so is Trent Dilfer according to that stupid logic. Saying someone is better than another just by Super Bowl rings makes no sense at all.

HBF



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 17866
Status: 
Offline
Elway is still the first QB I'd take if you gave me the opportunity to take any QB in NFL history. You can have whoever you want 2nd.

tofu_chipmunk



Joined: Wed Aug 5th, 2009
Location: Suburban Fatlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 6706
Status: 
Offline
silentkiller wrote: tofu_chipmunk wrote:
Fair or not, this game takes Brady out of the Bradshaw/Montana discussion and puts him in the Elway/Staubach discussion.  Of course, it's no mark of shame to be in either discussion.

Elway is better than Bradshaw and so is Brady. Bradshaw is not a top 5 or even top 10 QB in league history.

I'm talking about Super Bowl QBs.



 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Keep in mind all of the rule changes over the years too. That is why it's hard to draw comparisons. What if they didn't call ilegal contact anymore like it was in the 70s and 80s, when CBs could manhandle WRs? What if you are allowed to hit the QBs like you were in the 70s and 80s?

I think Brady is great, but I have a lot of respect for the guys that played in the 70s and 80s, and a guy like Montana or Fouts, or even Marino would benefit so much more from playing in a league geared towards offense.

stingmark



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cop City, California USA
Posts: 9390
Status: 
Offline
silentkiller wrote:
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
There's no point in discussing QB play with someone who thinks being undefeated in Super Bowls is what makes a QB better than another. I guess Jim Plunkett is better than Marino and Brady.

No, you claimed Elway was better than 3 guys who have more rings than him, & then tried using some goofy logic to try to back up your point. By your logic, Jim McMahon should be ranked higher than Elway then, b/c McMahon won both of his sb ringsbefore Elway did.

Sorry to break it to you, biased or not, Elways not "better than": Montana/Bradshaw/Aikmen or Brady, fact. Stats prove that.

Hell, Ben the rapist is argueably better than Elway.


Stats prove what? Elway has more touchdowns, completions, passing yards, running yards, just about every stat imaginable over those 3 and he dominated for a longer time than Aikman and Bradshaw. Just saying count the rings completely ignores everything else and is stupid. I guess again Jim Plunkett is better than Marino, Brady etc. and so is Trent Dilfer according to that stupid logic. Saying someone is better than another just by Super Bowl rings makes no sense at all.


Dilfer shouldnt even be in any discussion, he had a fluke year. I still disagree on Elway, though very good, he wasnt "dominant" when it counted, thats why hes a few tiers below alot ot guys. You say stats dont matter, then cite a bunch for Elway. When the games on the line,
I can think of atleast 5-6 other guys Id take before Elway, sorry.

Elways below .500 when it counts, thats why Id take atleast 5-6 guys ahead of him. Below .500 in the big game is by no means "dominant", regular season stats mean nothing, Marino is perfect example of that.

Last edited on Mon Feb 6th, 2012 05:26 pm by stingmark

BayouBoogie



Joined: Wed Oct 17th, 2007
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana USA
Posts: 6864
Status: 
Offline
stingmark wrote: silentkiller wrote:
tofu_chipmunk wrote:
Fair or not, this game takes Brady out of the Bradshaw/Montana discussion and puts him in the Elway/Staubach discussion.  Of course, it's no mark of shame to be in either discussion.

Elway is better than Bradshaw and so is Brady. Bradshaw is not a top 5 or even top 10 QB in league history.


How so if Both have losses in the sb, and neither has 4 sb rings? Thats your opinion, wrong mind you, but your opinion. Elway is below .500 in the sb, how is he "better"? Explain.

Bradshaw/Montana are both undefeated in SBs. Hell, Aikmens better than Elway, more rings & more SB wins.

I don't agree at allwith thinking more wins and losses automatically means one QB is better than another. Good discussion for people who only understand the game on a surface level, but not realistic to say being on a better team means being a better QB.

Superstar
Reigning Defending POTY


Joined: Thu Jan 31st, 2008
Location: Truth Or Consequences, New Mexico USA
Posts: 5665
Status: 
Offline
stingmark wrote: silentkiller wrote:
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
There's no point in discussing QB play with someone who thinks being undefeated in Super Bowls is what makes a QB better than another. I guess Jim Plunkett is better than Marino and Brady.

No, you claimed Elway was better than 3 guys who have more rings than him, & then tried using some goofy logic to try to back up your point. By your logic, Jim McMahon should be ranked higher than Elway then, b/c McMahon won both of his sb ringsbefore Elway did.

Sorry to break it to you, biased or not, Elways not "better than": Montana/Bradshaw/Aikmen or Brady, fact. Stats prove that.

Hell, Ben the rapist is argueably better than Elway.


Stats prove what? Elway has more touchdowns, completions, passing yards, running yards, just about every stat imaginable over those 3 and he dominated for a longer time than Aikman and Bradshaw. Just saying count the rings completely ignores everything else and is stupid. I guess again Jim Plunkett is better than Marino, Brady etc. and so is Trent Dilfer according to that stupid logic. Saying someone is better than another just by Super Bowl rings makes no sense at all.


Dilfer shouldnt even be in any discussion, he had a fluke year. I still disagree on Elway, though very good, he wasnt "dominant" when it counted, thats why hes a few tiers below alot ot guys. You say stats dont matter, then cite a bunch for Elway. When the games on the line,
I can think of atleast 5-6 other guys Id take before Elway, sorry.

Elways below .500 when it counts, thats why Id take atleast 5-6 guys ahead of him. Below .500 in the big game is by no means "dominant", regular season stats mean nothing, Marino is perfect example of that.


Did you watch Elway on a regular basis, or are you just doing statistical analysis?  Elway's Broncos teams were not that good more often than not, and he was able to get the most out of everything he had around him to rise above and win.  As a diehard Raiders fan who has physically watched no less than 50 Elway games on tape and live over the years, I can say without question that John Elway is one of the top-5 QBs that has ever played, and is better than Tom Brady (and I'd estimate I've seen Brady close to 50 times too, being that his games are always on in my market).  Elway never had great WRs, he MADE them great by getting them the ball.  He never had a running game, and his OL was sometimes good, sometimes not so good.  His teams always had a couple of playmakers on defense, and three or four that played like swiss cheese.  Give Elway a real team from that era, like the Bears or Redskins, and he absolutely would have dominated the entire NFL.  Tom Brady is great, no doubt about it, and I consider him in the top-10 QBs of all time and I'm not knocking him at all - especially due to him bringing what a lot of people viewed as one of the weaker Pats teams to 13-3 this year and almost winning the Super Bowl.  But you cannot honestly take 5 or 6 QBs before Elway if you watched him unbiasedly over a long stretch of time.  And, you cannot take QBs into consideration that you haven't seen play regularly either.  I saw Bradshaw and Staubach towards the end of their career, but they changed the rules in 1978 so it's really not a fair comparison at this point on those guys or those that came before them.  But to get an idea of how huge the rules change was statistically speaking, Roger Staubach in his last year in the NFL at age 37 had his career best numbers in completions, yards, and TDs.  Bradshaw from 79-81 had three of his top four years ever in the same categories...only in 78 did he throw for more yards than in 81, and it was mainly due to the Raiders breaking his throwing hand and causing him to miss two games.  

Guys I'd take over Elway?  Montana.  I wish I could say Marino because I was always a huge fan, but he came across as such a dick to his teammates at times that I think it's why the Dolphins never got further than they did. 

silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1244
Status: 
Offline
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
There's no point in discussing QB play with someone who

Stats prove what? Elway has more touchdowns, completions, passing yards, running yards, just about every stat imaginable over those 3 and he dominated for a longer count the rings completely ignores everything else and is stupid.
You say stats dont matter, then cite a bunch for Elway. When the games on the line,
I can think of atleast 5-6 other guys Id take before ahead of him. Below .500 in the big game is by no means "dominant", regular season stats mean nothing, Marino is perfect example of that.


When did I ever said stats don't matter? You're the guy guy who claimed that those guys has better stats than Elway when that it's easily false. And to say Dan Marino and John Elway weren't dominant means 1 of 2 things either that you know nothing about football or you never watched their play in the 80's and 90's. Both guys are top 10 ever with a strong case for top 5.

Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9688
Status: 
Offline
I think Elway was probably the best example of a total package for a QB with all of his skills, but I think he is somewhat overrated.  He is definitely around the Top 10, but I just never viewed him as being a dominant quarterback. 

I found this on the bleacherreport.  

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/778095-john-elway-why-hes-the-most-overrated-athlete-of-all-time


I don't weigh too heavily on the stats stuff, so I am trying to have somebody persuade me otherwise than viewing him as somewhat overrated. 

There have been several, or even alot of QBs, who made the wide receivers and vice-versa.  Look at what Brady has done with some of the talent that has come his way. 




Last edited on Mon Feb 6th, 2012 11:11 pm by Papa Voo

The Ultimate Sin
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Parts Unknown, Sri Lanka
Posts: 9859
Status: 
Offline
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
tofu_chipmunk wrote:
Fair or not, this game takes Brady out of the Bradshaw/Montana discussion and puts him in the Elway/Staubach discussion.  Of course, it's no mark of shame to be in either discussion.

Elway is better than Bradshaw and so is Brady. Bradshaw is not a top 5 or even top 10 QB in league history.



Bradshaw/Montana are both undefeated in SBs. Hell, Aikmens better than Elway, more rings & more SB wins.


That's quite a foolish way of judging QBs since quarterbacks don't win titles, it's teams that win. Elway was better at every aspect of quarterbacking than both Aikman and Bradshaw and if he had great coaching and defense similar to those 2 he'd have a lot more titles.


Elway did have great coaching, he went to 4 straight sbs, and lost all 4.


What years were Elway's 4 straight Super Bowls?

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
The Ultimate Sin wrote: stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
tofu_chipmunk wrote:
Fair or not, this game takes Brady out of the Bradshaw/Montana discussion and puts him in the Elway/Staubach discussion.  Of course, it's no mark of shame to be in either discussion.

Elway is better than Bradshaw and so is Brady. Bradshaw is not a top 5 or even top 10 QB in league history.



Bradshaw/Montana are both undefeated in SBs. Hell, Aikmens better than Elway, more rings & more SB wins.


That's quite a foolish way of judging QBs since quarterbacks don't win titles, it's teams that win. Elway was better at every aspect of quarterbacking than both Aikman and Bradshaw and if he had great coaching and defense similar to those 2 he'd have a lot more titles.


Elway did have great coaching, he went to 4 straight sbs, and lost all 4.


What years were Elway's 4 straight Super Bowls?

Jim Kelly

tofu_chipmunk



Joined: Wed Aug 5th, 2009
Location: Suburban Fatlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 6706
Status: 
Offline
The Ultimate Sin wrote: stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
tofu_chipmunk wrote:
Fair or not, this game takes Brady out of the Bradshaw/Montana discussion and puts him in the Elway/Staubach discussion.  Of course, it's no mark of shame to be in either discussion.

Elway is better than Bradshaw and so is Brady. Bradshaw is not a top 5 or even top 10 QB in league history.



Bradshaw/Montana are both undefeated in SBs. Hell, Aikmens better than Elway, more rings & more SB wins.


That's quite a foolish way of judging QBs since quarterbacks don't win titles, it's teams that win. Elway was better at every aspect of quarterbacking than both Aikman and Bradshaw and if he had great coaching and defense similar to those 2 he'd have a lot more titles.


Elway did have great coaching, he went to 4 straight sbs, and lost all 4.


What years were Elway's 4 straight Super Bowls?

You must have forgotten his disguising himself and changing his name to Boomer Esiason, before getting tired of that and going back to being John Elway.  Garth Brooks ripped off this idea for the Chris Gaines experiment.

Married Jo



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Hickory NC
Posts: 6755
Status: 
Online


:D:D

BayouBoogie



Joined: Wed Oct 17th, 2007
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana USA
Posts: 6864
Status: 
Offline
tofu_chipmunk wrote:
The Ultimate Sin wrote: stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
stingmark wrote:
silentkiller wrote:
tofu_chipmunk wrote:
Fair or not, this game takes Brady out of the Bradshaw/Montana discussion and puts him in the Elway/Staubach discussion.  Of course, it's no mark of shame to be in either discussion.

Elway is better than Bradshaw and so is Brady. Bradshaw is not a top 5 or even top 10 QB in league history.



Bradshaw/Montana are both undefeated in SBs. Hell, Aikmens better than Elway, more rings & more SB wins.


That's quite a foolish way of judging QBs since quarterbacks don't win titles, it's teams that win. Elway was better at every aspect of quarterbacking than both Aikman and Bradshaw and if he had great coaching and defense similar to those 2 he'd have a lot more titles.


Elway did have great coaching, he went to 4 straight sbs, and lost all 4.


What years were Elway's 4 straight Super Bowls?

You must have forgotten his disguising himself and changing his name to Boomer Esiason, before getting tired of that and going back to being John Elway.  Garth Brooks ripped off this idea for the Chris Gaines experiment.


Pat Summeral called several plays that Elway was involved in during that Patriots-Rams Super Bowl.

tofu_chipmunk



Joined: Wed Aug 5th, 2009
Location: Suburban Fatlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 6706
Status: 
Offline
BayouBoogie wrote: Pat Summeral called several plays that Elway was involved in during that Patriots-Rams Super Bowl.
Poor Pat's mind is continuously a couple of years behind the times now.  He was telling everyone within earshot not to fly in the fall of 2003.

stingmark



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cop City, California USA
Posts: 9390
Status: 
Offline
Correction:Denver went to 3 straight sbs,.5.overall. Im thinking of Buffalo going to 4 straight, my bad.

Last edited on Wed Feb 8th, 2012 07:36 am by stingmark

stingmark



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cop City, California USA
Posts: 9390
Status: 
Offline
silentkiller wrote:

There's no point in discussing QB play with someone who

Stats prove what? Elway has more touchdowns, completions, passing yards, running yards, just about every stat imaginable over those 3 and he dominated for a longer count the rings completely ignores everything else and is stupid.
You say stats dont matter, then cite a bunch for Elway. When the games on the line,
I can think of atleast 5-6 other guys Id take before ahead of him. Below .500 in the big game is by no means "dominant", regular season stats mean nothing, Marino is perfect example of that.

When did I ever said stats don't matter? You're the guy guy who claimed that those guys has better stats than Elway when that it's easily false. And to say Dan Marino and John Elway weren't dominant means 1 of 2 things either that you know nothing about football or you never watched their play in the 80's and 90's.
Both guys are top 10 ever with a strong case for top 5.


Never said neither sucked, nor werent great. Its all a matter of opinion. I dont care about how great Tom Brady is, you could actually say that he hasnt had good WRs either, like Elway. I saw both Marino&Elway play. I dont think either are in the league.of Montana/Bradshaw, I just dont. I also dont think Brady is the greatest either. But hes there w/guys like:aikmen & so forth.

The op claimed that Brady could be the.best evah, which just isnt true, win or lose last Sunday. To discount losses in sbs though id foolish too imo. Someone here claimed qbs dont win games by themselves, and its a team game. Yet, now, its so and so didnt have anybody on his team &thats why he lost. You win or lose as a team, you can no more make the claim that so and so is the greatest w/o having to take into account theirw/l record. Elway is below .500 as great as he is, others arent. I take the guys w/the better record, you dont. No big deal.

Last edited on Wed Feb 8th, 2012 07:51 am by stingmark

tofu_chipmunk



Joined: Wed Aug 5th, 2009
Location: Suburban Fatlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 6706
Status: 
Offline
stingmark wrote: Correction:Denver went to 3 straight sbs,.5.overall. Im thinking of Buffalo going to 4 straight, my bad.
The nitpicking police says Denver went to Super Bowls XXI, XXII, and XXIV.  Cincinnati was in Super Bowl XXIII.

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
tofu_chipmunk wrote: stingmark wrote: Correction:Denver went to 3 straight sbs,.5.overall. Im thinking of Buffalo going to 4 straight, my bad.
The nitpicking police says Denver went to Super Bowls XXI, XXII, and XXIV.  Cincinnati was in Super Bowl XXIII.
back when the NFC was totally dominating the Superbowl

tofu_chipmunk



Joined: Wed Aug 5th, 2009
Location: Suburban Fatlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 6706
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote: tofu_chipmunk wrote: stingmark wrote: Correction:Denver went to 3 straight sbs,.5.overall. Im thinking of Buffalo going to 4 straight, my bad.
The nitpicking police says Denver went to Super Bowls XXI, XXII, and XXIV.  Cincinnati was in Super Bowl XXIII.
back when the NFC was totally dominating the Superbowl

Yeah, the Broncos/Bills days of dominance were dark times for the AFC.

beejmi
The Big Kahuna


Joined: Sat Oct 13th, 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 41543
Status: 
Offline

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
tofu_chipmunk wrote: stingmark wrote: Correction:Denver went to 3 straight sbs,.5.overall. Im thinking of Buffalo going to 4 straight, my bad.
The nitpicking police says Denver went to Super Bowls XXI, XXII, and XXIV.  Cincinnati was in Super Bowl XXIII.


we call that fact checking in our business  :)

I didn't think Denver had gone to three straight, but was too lazy to look it up. 

 

Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9688
Status: 
Offline
Denver's dominance was short if at all.   I suppose the T. Davis years they were the cream of the AFC but that was very short.

tofu_chipmunk



Joined: Wed Aug 5th, 2009
Location: Suburban Fatlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 6706
Status: 
Offline
Papa Voo wrote: Denver's dominance was short if at all.   I suppose the T. Davis years they were the cream of the AFC but that was very short.

When I said "dominance", I'm talking about AFC representation in the Super Bowl.  Denver represented the AFC in Super Bowls XXI, XXII, and XXIV.  Buffalo represented the AFC in Super Bowls XXV, XXVI, XXVII, and XXVIII.  So, Denver and Buffalo represented the AFC in the Super Bowl seven out of eight years.  Additionally, Buffalo lost the AFC championship game to the Bengals prior to Super Bowl XXIII, and Denver lost to Buffalo for the right to go to Super Bowl XXVI.  Even though Denver and Buffalo combined to go 0-7 in the big game in that eight year period, I would say that seven AFC championship wins and 9 AFC championship appearances collectively qualifies as AFC dominance.

Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9688
Status: 
Offline
I could go with their representation for the AFC but I was taking the word dominance to mean that they were clearly perceived as the best team in the AFC sort of like the Pats were over from around 2001 through 2007.  Eh, I guess it is just a different interpretation of the word dominance. 

Last edited on Wed Feb 8th, 2012 11:51 pm by Papa Voo

BayouBoogie



Joined: Wed Oct 17th, 2007
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana USA
Posts: 6864
Status: 
Offline
tofu_chipmunk wrote:
Papa Voo wrote: Denver's dominance was short if at all.   I suppose the T. Davis years they were the cream of the AFC but that was very short.

When I said "dominance", I'm talking about AFC representation in the Super Bowl.  Denver represented the AFC in Super Bowls XXI, XXII, and XXIV.  Buffalo represented the AFC in Super Bowls XXV, XXVI, XXVII, and XXVIII.  So, Denver and Buffalo represented the AFC in the Super Bowl seven out of eight years.  Additionally, Buffalo lost the AFC championship game to the Bengals prior to Super Bowl XXIII, and Denver lost to Buffalo for the right to go to Super Bowl XXVI.  Even though Denver and Buffalo combined to go 0-7 in the big game in that eight year period, I would say that seven AFC championship wins and 9 AFC championship appearances collectively qualifies as AFC dominance.


A Ronnie Harmon drop kept Denver and Buffalo from meeting in the AFC Championship Game after the 1989 season, as well.

The Ultimate Sin
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Parts Unknown, Sri Lanka
Posts: 9859
Status: 
Offline
stingmark wrote:
Correction:Denver went to 3 straight sbs,.5.overall. Im thinking of Buffalo going to 4 straight, my bad.

Except it wasn't 3 either. Do you just make shit up as you type it?

Last edited on Thu Feb 9th, 2012 05:36 am by The Ultimate Sin



UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems