phragle said:Keep telling yourself that!
We both know that I know everything.
phragle said:Keep telling yourself that!
On the first two series Seattle got FG's after starting with godo but not great field positions.Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
I'm not counting that "drive" because they didn't try to score, they just kneeled the ball. I'm not counting the KO return either.
FG, FG, TD, Punt, TD, TD - that's how Seattle's drives went in this game. Denver couldn't stop them at all.
Stitch01 said:The Seattle defense dominating the Denver offense and deciding the game and the Denver pass defense playing like dog shit are not mutually exclusive. Both happened.
A blink of an eye is 3 min into the second quarter? There's a million games where a team is down 2 scored in the early parts of the second.H78 said:By the way...could anyone even tell what the hell the Broncos' gameplan was yesterday? I mean maybe it's unfair to ask because they were down 15-0 in the blink of an eye, but looking back I don't know if I could even tell you how they planned to attack the Seahawks' defense.
No shit.Kenny F'ing Powers said:
The Denver pass defense playing like shit doesn't excuse the Denver offense. Denver wasn't going to win the game by scoring 8 points.
If you have an argument to make, you should use it. The question isn't what position is more difficult to master, the question is, in a given game, how much influence does that individual player have over the outcome of the given game?rodderick said:If you have to go to that extreme than I guess you agree with the general point I'm making.
Stitch01 said:No shit.
The whole tangent started with someone saying the Broncos defense played decentKenny F'ing Powers said:
So what's your point?
If it's that the offense and defense played bad, then...
No shit.
The Seattle defense dominating the Denver offense and deciding the game and the Denver pass defense playing like dog shit are not mutually exclusive. Both happened.
Dude, 13 points on three possessions is awful. 27 points on six possessions is even worse. Teams typically get 11-12 possessions in an NFL game, so you can do the math. Just because the Denver offense and Peyton Manning in particular played terribly - which I'm certainly not disputing by any means - doesn't mean we have to lose our freaking minds and think that the defense played well or even OK. Denver sucked on both sides of the ball (and special teams).jose melendez said:On the first two series Seattle got FG's after starting with godo but not great field positions.
They got down to Denver's 18 with a first down before settling for a field goal on posession one and on posession two they get down to the Denver 16 on first before having to kick a field goal. Given the Denver offense had mustered four plays at that point (13 minutes in the game) only giving up two field goasls is kind of the definition of bend don't break.
Then comes the touchdown. That was ona short field starting at the Denver 37. Not so good. but really mostly the offenses fault. Mannin throws a pick 6 and it's down 22. Harvin takes it to the house and it's down 29.
At that point what do you want from the defense? The game is over, already. 13 points in a first half where you spent 20+ minutes on the field ain't that bad.
Denver's D kept them alive in 1Q by not giving up TDs, but 2 FG, and the score was only 8-0. It was still a game. but the 2 Manning picks that followed, that led to 2 TD, and 22-0, and was game over. Manning's impotence in the first half, and the offense's inability to keep a drive going, kept the Denver D on the field for too long.lexrageorge said:Seattle converted 3rd down with 9 , 7, 4, 5, 4, 7, 2, and 1 yards to go. The Denver defense had chances to stop Seattle drives but couldn't.
Granted, the Denver offense did the Broncos no favors, and the longest Seattle drives occurred essentially in garbage time. I would say the Denver defense was OK at the start of the game, but really never made any great standout plays to stop Seattle drives until it was essentially too late.
Stitch01 said:Brady has clearly been better in the Super Bowl, and that matters a little bit. Personally, its such a small sample of games that I cant put more than a little bit of weight on it.
So it doesn't matter at all to you that Brady's been there (a lot) more or that he's won more? I could see how this skews towards Peyton... If the postseason doesn't matter then of course he's up there with the GOAT.... But a lot of people tend to think the post season matters I think and especially championship games or series. If you ignore all the ways Peyton is worse than Brady then he is clearly better.Stitch01 said:Brady has clearly been better in the Super Bowl, and that matters a little bit. Personally, its such a small sample of games that I cant put more than a little bit of weight on it.
After the second FG made it 8-0, I said to my wife "It's never good to leave Red Zone opportunites as FG's and not TD's. And against Manning, it can come back to haunt you." At the time, I kept thinking that Manning would right the ship and score at TD and it would be 8-7 and there would be a ball game. But INT > TD, then INT/Pick-6, and it was Game OVer.bankshot1 said:Denver's D kept them alive in 1Q by not giving up TDs, but 2 FG, and the score was only 8-0. It was still a game. but the 2 Manning picks that followed, that led to 2 TD, and 22-0, and was game over. Manning's impotence in the first half, and the offense's inability to keep a drive going, kept the Denver D on the field for too long.
OK, let's playthis game:Stitch01 said:I think Peyton is easily a top five all time quarterback after taking into account postseason performance.
I think Brady has been slightly better in the postseason, but not by enough to outweigh Manning's superior production in the regular season.
I think they're super close and both top five all time.
I thought the same thing, that settling for the 2 FGs would come back to bite Seattle in the ass.Saints Rest said:After the second FG made it 8-0, I said to my wife "It's never good to leave Red Zone opportunites as FG's and not TD's. And against Manning, it can come back to haunt you." At the time, I kept thinking that Manning would right the ship and score at TD and it would be 8-7 and there would be a ball game. But INT > TD, then INT/Pick-6, and it was Game OVer.
Saints Rest said:
OK, let's playthis game:
Super Bowl Era only
Top Regular Season QBs (Career):
My list might look something like
Then Top Post-Season QBs (Career):
- Manning, P
- Brady
- Marino
- Favre
- ??? could be Montana, could be Young, could be Brees. I'd have to do some more analysis.
- Montana
- Brady
- Aikman
- Bradshaw?
- Starr?
- Manning, E?
Especially since they had like 4th and 1 inch after that play they challenged where Wilson scrambled and reach as he was going out of bounds. Just stupid to not go for it there unless the FG wins you the game or something.bankshot1 said:I thought the same thing, that settling for the 2 FGs would come back to bite Seattle in the ass.
taoofoj said:You could split a lot of hairs here but I think it's pretty clear Manning is not in the conversation for GOAT. The postseason record is too damning and the sample size is large enough.
crystalline said:Found it
![]()
He broke the tackle of a DT: Mitch Umrein.
That was a pretty ballsy run.. Brady was one on one with the defender 3 yards out and clearly decided he was going to beat him to score, sliding be damned.
taoofoj said:The individual numbers are less instructive because the game has changed over the decades and it's tough to compare across eras - but to determine a GOAT you might look for the guy who is near at the top of every category and does not have an achilles heel (e.g. bad playoff record, zero MVPs): regular season win %, playoff win%, SB wins, career stats, and awards. Eyeballing it I'd say Montana most consistently compares favorably and would be my GOAT.
.
The Social Chair said:
The super bowl w/l record for Montana needs the context that the AFC wasn't very competitive in the super bowl for a lot of the 80s and 90s. The NFC conference game could be argued as Montana's real super bowl and his record with SF was 4-2. Still really great but closer to Brady's super bowl record of 3-2.
Terry Bradshaw was 14-5 in the playoffs with a passer rating of 83 mainly compiled during an era when DBs could maul receivers all over the field and it was common for the regular season passer rating leader to have a score in the high 80s or low 90s. He was 6-1 with a rating of about 100 after the rules were changed in 1978. I'd say he's Montana's biggest competition in terms of postseason performance.coremiller said:Among non-active players, Montana's only real rival as a post-season QB is surprisingly (I would never have guessed until I looked it up) Kurt Warner, whose record was 9-4 with the highest rating and AY/A of any non-active post-season QB with more than 200 attempts.[/size]
coremiller said:
And FWIW, Montana's combined Super Bowl/NFCCG record is 8-2 (with the two losses by a combined 5 points); Brady's is 8-5, and he's lost the last two by 15 and 10 points.
WayBackVazquez said:
Also FWIW, Montana also lost an AFCG with the Chiefs 30-13. He was 9 of 23 for 125 yards and an INT.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Also are we just going to skip over the fact that Montana lost a playoff game 49-3? That he went one and done 3 years in a row?
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Also are we just going to skip over the fact that Montana lost a playoff game 49-3? That he went one and done 3 years in a row?
coremiller said:Anyway, the point isn't that Montana never had a bad playoff game. He did, a few times. Any QB who gets enough playoff starts will have a poor game sooner or later, the quality of the opposition is too good. We could cherry-pick individual games that would make anyone look terrible or fantastic. When you don't cherry pick but luck at the aggregate, Montana had fewer poor playoff games, and was better in the other games, than just about anyone else. There's real substance behind the Montana legend.
WayBackVazquez said:
But it's not cherry-picking individual games. it was a three-year period. Your contention seems to be that it's open-and-shut that Montana is the dominant playoff performer, and I think it's possible to argue otherwise. Brady does, after all, have a slightly better playoff record.
Montana had an absolutely flawless three-year playoff run from 1988-1990. He had a mirror-image awful playoff run the three years before that from 1985-1987, where he lost three straight playoff games, threw 8 INT and 0 TD, and led his offense to exactly 3 field goals combined, culminating with being benched at home against an 8-7 wild card team. If you give the same weight to the three stinker years as to the three flawless years, you're left with the 12 games that represent the other half of his playoff career. And he was fine, but no God in those games: 62% completion, 26 TD, 16 INT, and an 83.07 rating. The difference is, Brady's playoff highs have not been as high, and his lows not nearly as low. He's been more consistent. Where Montana had a three-year playoff run with a 50.5 passer rating, Brady has never had a three-year run below 80.
coremiller said:
For one thing Brady does not actually have a better playoff record; Brady is 18-8 (.692); Montana is 16-7 (.695). Brady's postseason rating is 87.5; Montana's is 95.6 (in a more difficult era). Montana has a big edge in AY/A, 7.80 to 6.63, and that's without considering the more difficult passing environment.
For another thing, I don't understand your logic behind the "bad years cancel out the good ones" argument. For one, you're letting 3 bad games cancel out 8 good ones, so even if we want to play the cancel-out game it should be in terms of "games" and not "years". But more fundamentally, why should we pretend those 8 games never happened? They did, and during that stretch Montana won 2 Super Bowls with a combined passer rating of 126.5, with 22 TDs and 2 INTs. Brady never had a postseason stretch anything remotely like that (nobody has). Those games seem highly relevant to me when we're trying to figure out who the best postseason QB is. That Montana also had some poor games is also relevant, but does not justify pretending the good games never happened.
If your point is that lower variance is better than higher variance, that's an interesting point, but 1) I'm not convinced that's correct, you may have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl with higher variance, and 2) either way, lower variance would only be preferable if the mean performances were the same, which they're not. I don't see a good argument for trading away consistency in return for lower average performance.
rodderick said:
I wonder when you'll include in your argument the fact that Montana played in teams with a whole lot more talent than Brady's, including having many seasons with the undisputed best wide receiver (and arguably best player) of all time at his disposal.
Rice and John Taylor though, who for a few years was as dangerous a receiver as Rice. And, Roger Craig catching passes out of the backfield, one of the best ever at that.coremiller said:
Montana won two Super Bowls before the 49ers drafted Jerry Rice in 1985. The 81 team had one All-Pro (Ronnie Lott; Fred Dean also made All-Pro after joining the team in midseason); the leading rusher was Ricky Patton, and the leading receiver was Dwight Clark. The 84 team also had only one all-pro (RT Keith Farnhorst); the leading rusher was Wendell Tyler, and the leading receiver was Clark again, with 880 yards. Guys like Clark and Tyler were solid players, but those early championship teams weren't exactly stacked with in-their-prime stars like the 1989 and 1994 teams were.
If we're going to ding Montana for winning the Super Bowl twice while playing with Rice, how much should we ding Brady for not winning the Super Bowl while playing with Randy Moss? You can't spin every issue only in Brady's favor.
coremiller said:
Montana won two Super Bowls before the 49ers drafted Jerry Rice in 1985. The 81 team had one All-Pro (Ronnie Lott; Fred Dean also made All-Pro after joining the team in midseason); the leading rusher was Ricky Patton, and the leading receiver was Dwight Clark. The 84 team also had only one all-pro (RT Keith Farnhorst); the leading rusher was Wendell Tyler, and the leading receiver was Clark again, with 880 yards. Guys like Clark and Tyler were solid players, but those early championship teams weren't exactly stacked with in-their-prime stars like the 1989 and 1994 teams were.
If we're going to ding Montana for winning the Super Bowl twice while playing with Rice, how much should we ding Brady for not winning the Super Bowl while playing with Randy Moss? You can't spin every issue only in Brady's favor.
I agree with a lot of this: Deion Branch (loved him), Troy Brown (loved him) and David Patten don't get a sniff of the starting lineup for the 49ers the years they were stacked with Rice/Taylor. Troy Brown (did I mention I loved him?) maybe makes the team as a special teamer. Patten doesn't even make the team if I have to guess. Faulk is/was a poor mans Roger Craig. Montana had and made the most of the talent he had available. Brady had one year with that level of WR talent and set records with them. The remainder of the time he (and the system) made the most of whatever he had to work with. The Patriots offensive talent has been no where on a par with the talent available to Montana (or Manning, or Bradshaw if one wants to go there). And yet statistically he is only a couple of hairs lower than the numbers Montana put up.rodderick said:
I'm not dinging Montana for that, just saying this should be factored in the argument. How many All-Pros did Brady have in 01, 03 and 04? He won Super Bowls with Deion Branch, Troy Brown and David Patten being his leading receivers, he won Super Bowls with Antowain Smith as his leading rusher. Brady had two full seasons of Randy Moss at his disposal. Yeah, he didn't win a ring with him, but how many seasons did Montana not win the Super Bowl while throwing to Jerry Rice?
On average, Montana played with a lot more talent, for a lot longer. This is indisputable.
rodderick said:
I'm not dinging Montana for that, just saying this should be factored in the argument. How many All-Pros did Brady have in 01, 03 and 04? He won Super Bowls with Deion Branch, Troy Brown and David Patten being his leading receivers, he won Super Bowls with Antowain Smith as his leading rusher. Brady had two full seasons of Randy Moss at his disposal. Yeah, he didn't win a ring with him, but how many seasons did Montana not win the Super Bowl while throwing to Jerry Rice?
On average, Montana played with a lot more talent, for a lot longer. This is indisputable.
coremiller said:
Montana won two Super Bowls before the 49ers drafted Jerry Rice in 1985. The 81 team had one All-Pro (Ronnie Lott; Fred Dean also made All-Pro after joining the team in midseason); the leading rusher was Ricky Patton, and the leading receiver was Dwight Clark. The 84 team also had only one all-pro (RT Keith Farnhorst); the leading rusher was Wendell Tyler, and the leading receiver was Clark again, with 880 yards. Guys like Clark and Tyler were solid players, but those early championship teams weren't exactly stacked with in-their-prime stars like the 1989 and 1994 teams were.
If we're going to ding Montana for winning the Super Bowl twice while playing with Rice, how much should we ding Brady for not winning the Super Bowl while playing with Randy Moss? You can't spin every issue only in Brady's favor.
coremiller said:
If you don't count Rice's rookie year in 1985 when Rice was still learning the ropes and only started four games, Montana and Rice played five seasons together. From 1986-1990, they won the Super Bowl twice and lost a third NFCCG on a last second field goal after Montana got knocked out of the game with an injury while leading in the fourth quarter and Roger Craig fumbled while running out the clock. Even with great players it's really hard to win the Super Bowl every single season.
RetractableRoof said:I agree with a lot of this: Deion Branch (loved him), Troy Brown (loved him) and David Patten don't get a sniff of the starting lineup for the 49ers the years they were stacked with Rice/Taylor. Troy Brown (did I mention I loved him?) maybe makes the team as a special teamer. Patten doesn't even make the team if I have to guess. Faulk is/was a poor mans Roger Craig. Montana had and made the most of the talent he had available. Brady had one year with that level of WR talent and set records with them. The remainder of the time he (and the system) made the most of whatever he had to work with. The Patriots offensive talent has been no where on a par with the talent available to Montana (or Manning, or Bradshaw if one wants to go there). And yet statistically he is only a couple of hairs lower than the numbers Montana put up.
WayBackVazquez said:
Yeah, he won two Super Bowls, but before Jerry Rice caught his first playoff touchdown, Joe Montana was 7-4 in the playoffs with 17 TD and 15 INT, and a sub-60% completion percentage for an 80.3 rating. Then...things changed.