The notion that somehow losing a Super Bowl is worse than not getting there in the first place
1948_Swell_Robinson
Posts: 1,923 ✭✭✭✭✭
The arguments of best QB ever are multi faceted and deep. However, there is one point I often hear, "Montana was better than Brady because Montana never lost a Super Bowl with an undefeated 4-0 record."
I am always puzzled by that. How is losing a super bowl better than not even getting there in the first place?
If you are QB and your team doesn't even make the playoffs...that is somehow better than losing a Super Bowl?
Or, if you are QB and are retired because you aren't good enough to play anymore...that is somehow better than a guy who is good enough to play longer and he ends up losing a Super Bowl?
Brady has four undefeated Super Bowls. THEN, he also has two more wins and went to three more, while Montana was either getting shut out from making the playoffs, getting bounced in an earlier round, or sitting on the couch watching because he wasn't good enough to play as long. Clearly winning two and losing three is better than not even making one?? Right? That is what it boils down to after the four super bowl wins are washed out as a tie.
I'm not in the camp of thinking Super Bowls are the ultimate or only measuring stick...but clearly that point above is pretty flawed when people make the 4-0 comparison.
Comments
Postseason stats are irrelevant when comparing players in team sports, unless they had similar opportunities. Teams make it to and win or lose, not one player, however important the position they play.
Yes, I agree to a large degree....but that isn't the point.
What if the Pats defense completely fell apart every SB and gave up 50 points, leaving Brady with the same number of appearances and zero wins? is 0-9 > 4-0? The entire premise of comparing QBs by SB stats is inherently flawed. That is the point.
I’m a Homer and love Brady, I think he is the GOAT and nothing anyone says to me will change that ever. Taking that out of the equation which is tough because I’m biased I will say that Consistency, longevity, stats, supporting cast or lack there of, and getting your team wins in clutch situations ie 4th quarter comebacks, playoff wins all count. Putting it all together Brady is right there and I say he is the GOAT. I would sincerely say this even if I wasn’t a Patriots fan.
I somewhat agree. But I think you can look at post season performance in a big enough sample size to gauge some things. And in the case of Brady, he has played so many post season games that the numbers are difficult to ignore when comparing his career to others.
I think Brady is the GOAT but I would still pick Montana in that hypothetical question that was posted in another thread.
The question. down 4 points with 2 minutes to go in the Super Bowl.
Why Montana over Brady? Because hypothetically he can't lose any Super Bowl he plays in. He's 4-0
in reality so of course he's going to come back for the win.
Brady may or may not come back for the win. He can lose a hypothetical Super Bowl because
in reality he is 6-3.
In mixing the real and imagined you cannot go against the facts. Montana would come back to win the game
every time(100%) and Brady would come back to win 67% of the time.
In a large enough sample size, all players are no different than their regular season individual rate stats. Those with the least post season stats are the largest abnormalities, better or worse.
Eh. His teams were ahead in the final 2 minutes in 8 of his 9 Super Bowls. And tied in the 9th. Hard to blame him because the defense doesn't do their job.
So you're admitting it's a team game and not the result of one single player? I'm shocked, shocked I say to find there's gambling going on in here.
Brady's stats in Super Bowls are indistinguishable from his playoff stats which are indistinguishable from his regular season stats. If you need to know how Brady's teams did in Super Bowls, or even if they ever went to a Super Bowl, in order to evaluate his skill as a QB then you should ask someone who understands football to explain it to you. Because once you understand what football is, you won't need to look at postseason stuff ever again.
As a Bills fan that opinion.
Me for the last 25 years.
“Oh you’re a Bills fan? 0-4 right?”
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
"Who was better?" cannot be determined in team sports, but it's fun debating about it.
For me it's more than just "Montana was better than Brady because Montana never lost a Super Bowl with an undefeated 4-0 record.". First of all, you need to back up and consider that this is a rebuttal to the claim that Brady was better because he got to and won, more SB's.
Being on, and staying on a great team with great coaching and ownership is more important as being a great QB. Montana was sent packing because Steve Young was behind him, at least two opportunities lost with the 49ers, who remained great for the next two years.
I was always a big Joe Montana and Fran Tarkenton guy. I have had to grudgingly accept Brady as the GOAT QB because of his last few years in which he has played very well. His longevity doesn't mean he was a "better" QB, but doing it so well for so many more years is unprecedented.
My response to the "who would you pick" post was Montana because he never lost, and because his passer rating in the SB is MUCH better that Brady's. Either of those two would be fantastic choices.
Even though Tarkenton lost (and had a pretty low QBR) all three SB's he was in. I consider him every bit as good as Brady. Fran played on two of the worst teams in the history of professional football for the first 10-11 years of his career and when he returned to the improved Vikings, came one play from leading them to 4 straight (losses lol) SB's.
I saw him play and saw what he did with very few good "skill position" players on offense.
I'm betting not one person here agrees with my evaluation of Tarkenton because "he" lost every SB he played in.
As you stated above, not a good way to rank a player.
Then why did Montana NOT come back or lead his team to victory in the league championship games that he lost??
Why did he not come back in the years they didn't even make the playoffs?
Why only reserve that type of play for the Super Bowl when he could do it in the earlier rounds and win MORE Super Bowls?
I think you do have a point about the importance of players having "good" games while loosing a SB. I don't think you could say the loss to the eagles was Bradys fault. He threw for 505 yds, 3 TD 0 INT rating of 115.4. he had a great day individually but was still saddled with the "loss"
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
maybe because the QB, although vital, can't carry the whole load. it's been said many times, the QB gets too much credit for a Team's success and bears too much blame when they fail.
The point was never about how much credit to give to a QB for super bowls or lack thereof. It was the notion that losing a Super Bowl was somehow worse than not even getting to one. As you see above, Montana's 4-0 record was still cited as being more favorable than Brady's 6-3 record.
QB's do get more credit when winning Super Bowls. Many should. Why? Often times QB's on winning teams do not get to pad their stats in garbage time when trailing in the regular season, or in shoot outs on bad defensive teams. If you look at someone like Mitch Trubisky this year, he got the majority of his positive passing stats in garbage time against 'prevent' type defenses.
It is not even a matter of clutch. QB's like Tom Brady could easily have five or ten more touchdown passes in the regular season if their teams were either trailing a lot or were in shoot outs all the time. So he is missing out on the easy stat padding stats more so than other QB's that have pretty looking numbers.
Dan Fouts had great numbers but never won a Super Bowl. While I am not lambasting him for not winning a Super Bowl, I am pretty sure that putting someone like Troy Aikman in a situation like that, Aikman would have no problem throwing for 4,000 yards every year. Aikman could have easily thrown for five to ten more touchdowns EVERY year, with several of those four yard touchdown passes that went to Emmitt Smith instead, which would therefore increase his QB rating tremendously with those extra touchdown passes, and make his QB rating look as pretty as Marino or others.
So keep that in mind when doing QB statistical comparisons with QB's like Brady and Aikman who had some of those easy passing stats suppressed as explained above. Some other QB's may come out looking as pretty with a shiny QB rating similar...but that shiny QB rating doesn't make them better or as good.
of this, I am in full agreement. always better to make it to the championship round and loose than to loose in an earlier round or not make the playoffs at all.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Elway is 2-3 in the SB.
Even though he lost 3 times, he was the person who took three teams to the SB that would not have gotten close to it had he not been the QB.
In my book he is one of the best.
I agree. When looking at the combination of tools, performance, success, and statistical measurement....Elway has a claim to be as good as anyone. His tools were better than ALL of the guys who are currently considered the best ever.
Clear measurable tools that cannot be hidden or propped because of a teammate or system.
Not talking about Jeff George here who simply had a great arm....but Elway is in a class as good as anyone.
I've heard this before from Terry Bradshaw. Terry Bradshaw once said something to the tune of "I would not want to lose the Super Bowl, I just couldn't lose that game". I think what he was trying to say was, to lose the Super Bowl is the biggest punch in the gut you can take because it's the holy grail. To get that far, to taste immortality, to have the holy grail in the palm of your hand and lose it, is something that you never get over. I heard Cris Collinsworth say one time that it still hurts him to this day that he lost the Super Bowl. So people that say it's worse to lose the Super Bowl than never make it there are basically saying that to get that close to immortality just to have it snatched away is too painful to bear. Personally, I'd rather make it to the Super Bowl and take a crack at it, win or lose.
Perk, at this point, I'm not sure how anyone can take Brady down from the top spot. He is basically the Mickey Mantle AND Hank Aaron of Quarterbacks. He has the long dominant peak and the ridiculous long dominant career as well. The fact that he is still doing what he is right now while guys like Andrew Luck or Troy Aikman fell to the football Gods, is a notch on his belt that can't be matched.
No need to rehash all the debates about the why's. The case is closed now.
The point was never about how much credit to give to a QB for super bowls or lack thereof. It was the notion that losing a Super Bowl was somehow worse than not even getting to one. As you see above, Montana's 4-0 record was still cited as being more favorable than Brady's 6-3 record
and to drone on, what seems lost on you is the importance of having the right Teammates and timing. the simple fact is that Montana never lost in the SB when those things intersected, that's all.
Elway is 2-3 in the SB.
Even though he lost 3 times, he was the person who took three teams to the SB that would not have gotten close to it had he not been the QB.
In my book he is one of the best.
yes, John Elway was one of the best but he definitely wasn't the guy you wanted at crunch time. by this flawed logic, there must be many who would choose Jim Kelly over Montana. to the Elway point, it looks like Montana crushed him.
No need to rehash all the debates about the why's. The case is closed now.
wow, 19 posts in and you're closing cases.
That’s why I put it as best as I could in my post, Ofcourse I’m not going to expect everyone to agree but putting it ALL together he is unmatched by anyone with his achievements. Some will say his Completion % or QB Rating ect.. is not as good as others but again putting everything on the table I say nobody can be in the same conversation in my opinion. He will add the all time passing yardage and TD’s to his resume next year as well. If it wasn’t for a bush league tackle by Pollard in 2008 he would have had another great playoff run as well but outside of that his durability has been remarkable
if Brady takes down Brees, Rodgers and (possibly) Mahomes in three consecutive weeks with a team not named the New England Patriots and places a second ring on his other hand, any and all GOAT debates will be forever put to rest
and to take it a step further, think about his card prices if that happens. if you think vintage, unopened, Jordan, Tiger et al. are going berzerk right now, those movements will be tame compared to the appreciation TB cards would experience. i seriously can't even imagine.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
losing a superbowl can be very painful. Two games that come to mind: 1.) when the bills missed the FG at the end of the game against the giants and lost by 2 points. 2.) the other painful loss was when the seahawks screwed up the goalline play a few years back against the patriots. I think it's the combination of the whole world watching and there's no tomorrow, plus the loss of that crown that is so damn hard to get. I'm a big washington football fan and the most painful loss for me was when they got blown out by the raiders in the superbowl in january1984 38-9. that was so embarrassing.
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
Case closed.
Brady is playing in his 14th league championship game Sunday. 14th! I was never a guy that credited QB's for winning so much as others do, but for the BIGGEST detractors, at what point do you look at Brady being in 14 league championships and say, "I just can't ignore that anymore."
Now, onto Belichick. I've heard it too often. I've heard people apologize for Belichick's utter failure as a head coach in Cleveland. They would claim Cleveland was a dead organization and make excuses...somehow forgetting that Cleveland had recently been in the league championship game just recently before Bellichick's arrival.
Or, "Bill was just learning how to be a head coach." Six years to learn how to be a head coach? Really? After also being in the league a decade already as a coordinator?
My only explanation was that those people simply did not want to admit that Brady was the best. They had to find some angle to take it away from Brady. I'm not a Brady fan. Never was. But he is the best. Period.
14 league championship games as an NFL QB.
How many league championship games has Belichick been in without Brady. Zero.
In fact, in the EIGHT seasons as a head coach without Brady as his QB, Bellichick has only made the playoffs one time! One game! And they lost that game. Five of those years with the Browns and three with NE(one being the year Brady missed every game but one).
It's over.
I love this guy!! 🍻👏👍👍
I think we could be friends!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Enough talk about this guy named Brady. Geez isn’t 20 years suffering enough?? Can we just get past this and watch the Bills and Packers in the Super Bowl. Until then I hear the National Tiddly-winks finals are pretty exciting.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
the regular season only exists to create a post season , its the regular season that no one needs to look at.
And what's all this I keep hearing about "Gale Sayers"? He's in the HOF, people keep calling him great, but I just tried to look him up in the bronco2078 version of football-reference and you know what? Gale Sayers wasn't even a football player. Never played a single game, not even one. Very strange.
Picture this...the Bills lose to the Bucs, but Allen finds a way to network with Brady and he later credits that (and his TB12 program
as the springboard to his multiple eventual SB wins.
Nobody can argue that Sayers and Butkus were both legendary players, take Bronco’s posts with a grain of salt if you will. But to my point I’m curious as to your feelings towards putting it all together, Stats, longevity, durability, 4th Quarter comebacks, post season success when given the opportunity.. I realize your stance on post season play and I find myself somewhat agreeing with you especially when I think of guys like Sayers, Butkus, Campbell ect.. but it has to count for something otherwise it wouldn’t be part of the game, yes I understand the team as a whole gets you to the playoffs but look at it this way, the playoffs are another set of circumstances that some players get to participate in. Brady has performed at an elite level in that platform yes? So whether or not you personally agree or disagree with it counting for anything the entire NFL world believes it does. They account for it but don’t hold it against players that didn’t get a shot at it otherwise guys like Sayers and Butkus wouldn’t be HOF’ers but the ones that did get a chance they either performed well or they didn’t. Brady has more performed well way more times than not. I’m not talking just winning it either I’m talking stats and playing well enough to make a difference.
Yes he is. And it's not debatable.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
I learned something anyway.
If quizzed on John Elway's Super Bowl record before this thread came out
I would have sworn he was 2-2.
Learned on here he was 2-3.
Absolutely he has, but he performs in the SB, and the playoffs, and the regular season at almost exactly the same level. My point is that you don't need to know how he did in the postseason to evaluate him - he's got hundreds of regular season games that show you exactly how good he is, and he's elite. Anyone who does need to know how Brady's teams did in Super Bowls in order to decide if Tom Brady was a great QB does not understand what football is. Repeat that last sentence as necessary until its truth is revealed.
And by bringing the postseason into it you screw over Sayers, and Campbell, and other elite players who never got to a SB or the playoffs through absolutely no fault of their own. People say "Jim Kelly lost a Super Bowl" because a kicker misses a FG, and they'd say "Jim Kelly won a Super Bowl" if the FG had been made. Obviously that makes no sense whatsoever, but it's almost universally accepted when talking about QBs. It will never stop, I know, but I'll be here to point out how ridiculous it is as long as I'm able.
I don't hold it against the players, they only play within the format of the NFL. the way that format is today makes it hard to compare the "skill position" players from the past, primarily pre-SB, leading to distortions and inflated stats.
@dallasactuary Great point about Jim Kelly. I understand what your saying
https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/patriots/kay-adams-tom-bradys-haters-dont-have-much-ammo-left-qb-thrives-bucs
Brady deniers also hate Christmas.
They can't be trusted
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......