The dumb argument regarding Brady vs Montana

[lancerman]

On 2/12/2018 at 5:50 PM, Bolts223 said:

In the early to mid 2000's the AFC was a complete bloodbath.

In 2004 the Patriots went 14-2 and still had to go on the road in the playoffs - let that sink in for a second.

Pats, Steelers, Colts, Chargers, Ravens were all really good teams.

Even teams like Broncos and Titans had their moments of being very good.

This. People forget that the AFC was the dominant conference until like 2009/2010. It’s actually largely been the same. Brady/Ben/Manning have dominated the AFC right through 2015 when Manning retired. And Brady still went to the next two Super Bowls anyways. People just weirdly value that the standard teams in the NFC can lose out to the hot new flavor of the year (Niners, Falcons, Panthers, Eagles) as some indictment of competition in the AFC. No the Seahawks eroded fast and the Packers haven’t been getting it done. A couple injuries this year and the NFC flipped on its head. 

The best conference in Brady’s tenure was still the AFC from 2003-2008. Steelers were fielding the best defensive teams in the league, Colts the best offense, the Chargers were explosive at skill positions, and the Patriots were the balanced one. 

[lancerman]

18 hours ago, Asciimo said:

the dude is wrong about 90% of the time.. 

Very generous of you 

[childofpudding]

6 hours ago, lancerman said:

This. People forget that the AFC was the dominant conference until like 2009/2010. It’s actually largely been the same. Brady/Ben/Manning have dominated the AFC right through 2015 when Manning retired. And Brady still went to the next two Super Bowls anyways. People just weirdly value that the standard teams in the NFC can lose out to the hot new flavor of the year (Niners, Falcons, Panthers, Eagles) as some indictment of competition in the AFC. No the Seahawks eroded fast and the Packers haven’t been getting it done. A couple injuries this year and the NFC flipped on its head. 

The best conference in Brady’s tenure was still the AFC from 2003-2008. Steelers were fielding the best defensive teams in the league, Colts the best offense, the Chargers were explosive at skill positions, and the Patriots were the balanced one. 

It's been kind of back and forth the last few seasons following a pretty long stretch of AFC dominance. But this past season the power structure swung to the NFC in a big way. Who knows if that will continue. Interconference play:

[lancerman]

2 hours ago, childofpudding said:

It's been kind of back and forth the last few seasons following a pretty long stretch of AFC dominance. But this past season the power structure swung to the NFC in a big way. Who knows if that will continue. Interconference play:

That seems about right to me. 2011 was the year Manning was out, the Steelers weren’t as dominant as they had been and the Patriots were having their defensive struggles. 

As I said, in recent memory no conference was ever as strong as the early go mid 2000’s AFC

[LaserFocus]

20 hours ago, lancerman said:

That seems about right to me. 2011 was the year Manning was out, the Steelers weren’t as dominant as they had been and the Patriots were having their defensive struggles. 

As I said, in recent memory no conference was ever as strong as the early go mid 2000’s AFC

The AFC East has still been soft since 2001, with only the Jets having a brief run of real success. It's been a real factor in helping the Pats gain home field advantage in the postseason, I have no doubt the Pats don't win five Super Bowls if Baltimore is in the AFC East.

[lancerman]

1 hour ago, LaserFocus said:

The AFC East has still been soft since 2001, with only the Jets having a brief run of real success. It's been a real factor in helping the Pats gain home field advantage in the postseason, I have no doubt the Pats don't win five Super Bowls if Baltimore is in the AFC East.

Montana's division was as bad or worse his whole career. And he had two divisional realignments. 

Let's go through your Baltimore example. 

2001: Patriots went 11-5. Ravens went 10-6. Ravens lost on the road in the playoffs to the Steelers. Patriots WON on the road in the playoffs to the Steelers to advance to the Super Bowl

2003: Patriots went 14-2. Ravens went 10-6. Ravens lost a home playoff game to the Titans to be eliminated from the playoffs. Patriots won a home playoff game against the Titans to advance to the AFCCG. 

2004: Patriots went 14-2. Ravens went 9-7. Patriots beat Ravens in regular season 24-3. Ravens didn't qualify for the playoffs. 

2014: Patriots went 12-4. Raven went 10-6 and got in the playoffs on a wildcard spot. Patriots and Ravens played each other in the playoffs. Ravens were eliminated. 

2016: Patriots went 14-2. Ravens went 8-8. Patriots and Ravens played in the regular season. Patriots won 30-23. Ravens didn't qualify for the playoffs. 

So no your logic just doesn't hold up whatsoever. It's funny how comically confidant you are about things you are unbelievably wrong about.

Hell just for posterity sake lets go through the Patriots vs Ravens history since 2001.

2004 regular season. 24-3 Patriots

2007 regular season. 27-24 Patriots

2009 regular season. 27-21 Patriots

2009 post season. 33-14 Ravens

2010 regular season. 23-20 (OT) Patriots

2011 post season. 23-20 Patriots

2012 regular season. 31-30 Ravens

2012 post season. 28-13 Ravens

2013 regular season. 41-7 Patriots

2014 post season. 35-31 Patriots

2016 regular season. 30-23 Patriots

11 total games since 2001. Patriots won 8. Ravens won 3. Every time the Patriots won a Super Bowl they had a better record than the Ravens. 2 times they beat the team the Ravens lost to in the playoffs in the same circumstances (home or away), beat the Ravens in the regular season 2 other years they won, and the remaining year they beat them in the post season. 

Comical

 

[Wolverine_Joe]

what dumb argument?   from niners forum?  there are no arguments.

brady is so far and ahead of anybody in the GOAT debate.  it's no longer an argument.  i dont care if some of you think aaron rodgers is better. or manning is better. whoever.  it doesn't matter.   debate has ended.  it's over. 

brady's career is looking like montana + young and some.  that's brady's career.  that's what brady has done. young and montana combined. and he has 3-4 more years of stat padding.   it's over.   brady is montana + young put together.

 

go argue who's #2.  nobody argues about so and so better than jordan anymore.   it's over.  no more debate. 

 

[Superman(DH23)]

On 2/14/2018 at 1:58 PM, lancerman said:

That seems about right to me. 2011 was the year Manning was out, the Steelers weren’t as dominant as they had been and the Patriots were having their defensive struggles. 

As I said, in recent memory no conference was ever as strong as the early go mid 2000’s AFC

9ers, Giants, Redskins, Bears were all dynasty level teams that had to deal with each other over and over again.

[lancerman]

3 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

9ers, Giants, Redskins, Bears were all dynasty level teams that had to deal with each other over and over again.

Bears were at their 1985 level exactly once. 

Steelers and Colts likely are dynasty’s without the Patriots. Chargers also likely win at least one maybe two in either 06 or 07 without the Patriots there 

[Superman(DH23)]

4 hours ago, lancerman said:

Bears were at their 1985 level exactly once. 

Steelers and Colts likely are dynasty’s without the Patriots. Chargers also likely win at least one maybe two in either 06 or 07 without the Patriots there 

The 85 Bears were at a championship level from 84-91 winning 6 division titles in 8 years.  The NFC was just loaded during that time

[lancerman]

1 hour ago, Superman(DH23) said:

The 85 Bears were at a championship level from 84-91 winning 6 division titles in 8 years.  The NFC was just loaded during that time

None of those teams were as good as the 85 version by any stretch. They won their division a lot. That doesn't mean they were dynasty level. McMahon was injury prone and missed most of the next year and the season after that. They won exactly 2 playoff games after 1985 into the 90's. It's a stretch to say the Bears were on pace to be a dynasty. Lots of teams go through a 5 year stretch of playoff appearances. Like I don't think the Bears were going to win multiple Super Bowls if the 49'ers didn't exist. 

I do think the Colts had a real shot to win one or two more in the early 2000's, I think Ben's Steelers had two shots at two more Super Bowls if not for the Patriots. I think I would favored the 2006 Chargers to win the whole thing if they got past the Patriots that year, and honestly they would have been favored over the Giants and had a really good chance to beat them if they faced in the Super Bowl if they beat the Pats in the AFCCG.

[Malik]

10 hours ago, lancerman said:

Bears were at their 1985 level exactly once. 

Steelers and Colts likely are dynasty’s without the Patriots. Chargers also likely win at least one maybe two in either 06 or 07 without the Patriots there 

The Colts? Peyton still likely loses at the same rate. It was only the 2 years that the Colts were blocked by the Patriots. I don't see how you can downplay the Bears in the 80s, but prop up the Chargers who similarly peaked 1 year in the 00s and didn't even win the Super Bowl unlike the 85 Bears.

[lancerman]

Just now, Malik said:

The Colts? Peyton still likely loses at the same rate. It was only the 2 years that the Colts were blocked by the Patriots. I don't see how you can downplay the Bears in the 80s, but prop up the Chargers who similarly peaked 1 year in the 00s and didn't even win the Super Bowl unlike the 85 Bears.

Because the Chargers realistically would have been favored to win the Super Bowl in 2006 and 2007 if they got by the Patriots. 2006 especially. 2007 the Patriots were fading towards the end and the Chargers would have been favored vs the Giants. The 2006 and 2007 Chargers were more likely to win a Super Bowl than any Bears team besides 1985. If not for the Patriots they would have at least matched if not beat the Bears in Super Bowl victories. 

The Colts from 2003-2009 had the most wins in that timeframe. They realistically sported the best offense since Marino's 1984 offense in 2004. They had 3 MVP caliber seasons from Manning. And they were largely considered a Super Bowl threat every single year from 2003 to 2009. It would have surprised nobody if the Colts won the Super Bowl any one of those years because they were always regarded as a top team. They went to more Super Bowls and more conference title games than the Bears in the timeframe mentioned. 

The Colts from 2002-2009 (8 years) had 99 regular seasons wins. 4 AFCCG appearances. 2 Super Bowl appearances and one Super Bowl win

The Bears from 1984-1991 (8 years and the same timeframe mentioned in this discussion) 90 wins. 3 conference championship games. 1 Super Bowl appearance and one Super Bowl win.

Hell lets throw the 2004-2011 Steelers in there. 89 wins. 4 AFCCG's. 3 Super Bowl appearances. 2 Super Bowl wins. 

[Malik]

30 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Because the Chargers realistically would have been favored to win the Super Bowl in 2006 and 2007 if they got by the Patriots. 2006 especially. 2007 the Patriots were fading towards the end and the Chargers would have been favored vs the Giants. The 2006 and 2007 Chargers were more likely to win a Super Bowl than any Bears team besides 1985. If not for the Patriots they would have at least matched if not beat the Bears in Super Bowl victories. 

The Colts from 2003-2009 had the most wins in that timeframe. They realistically sported the best offense since Marino's 1984 offense in 2004. They had 3 MVP caliber seasons from Manning. And they were largely considered a Super Bowl threat every single year from 2003 to 2009. It would have surprised nobody if the Colts won the Super Bowl any one of those years because they were always regarded as a top team. They went to more Super Bowls and more conference title games than the Bears in the timeframe mentioned. 

The Colts from 2002-2009 (8 years) had 99 regular seasons wins. 4 AFCCG appearances. 2 Super Bowl appearances and one Super Bowl win

The Bears from 1984-1991 (8 years and the same timeframe mentioned in this discussion) 90 wins. 3 conference championship games. 1 Super Bowl appearance and one Super Bowl win.

Hell lets throw the 2004-2011 Steelers in there. 89 wins. 4 AFCCG's. 3 Super Bowl appearances. 2 Super Bowl wins. 

The Bears actually did win a Super Bowl in reality. No hypothetical needed unlike the Chargers. How can you handwave the Bears who actually won a championship, but the Chargers "likely would have had 2?" I never said anything about the Colts v Bears. No idea why you're bringing them up as a point of contention. The Steelers are more likely to have won more without the Patriots dominance yes. I will absolutely agree to that. I don't agree that the Colts would have because they were losing to all sorts of teams in the playoffs from mediocre playoff teams like the 02 Jets (in a blowout) to all-time great teams like the 03 and 04 Patriots. There's nothing to suggest they would have been more successful without the Patriots in their way.

[CP3MVP]

Urban Meyer is better than nick saban because he’s never lost a national championship game