Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by elguapo:
No it seems you are having a really difficult time grasping logic and some common sense. It's a lot easier to beat teams now that the league has parity if you have a good or great qb. A lot of times that is all you need to separate teams nowadays. Teams are lacking on either offense or defense but rarely have both. The miners with Montana may have been able to keep great talent BUT so did the giants bears redskins and other great teams in the 80s. That is why these pats teams would of got destroyed. It was much harder to win back then.

Nowadays all the pats have to do is beat maybe the steelers in the afc or a good NFC team here and there. Hope this lesson was easy to follow.

So you're cool bringing up how Montana played in a different era to prove your point but want to turn around and bash Brady for playing well in his era?

49ers were one of the most talented teams in the 80s. Some of the best to ever play the game were on those niner teams. I'd say keeping that talent without a salary cap made them much more likely to win games than Brady and the Pats do having to constantly rebuild the roster outside of QB due to salary cap.

Parity means all 32 teams essentially have a chance to win and in a game where 1 loss in the playoffs means you're done it's a lot harder to get to the big dance consistently when you can't keep all your best players year to year. We were easily the most talented team in the 80s and early 90s if anything your point makes it worse for Joe who was surrounded by terrific talent his whole career.

Originally posted by elguapo:
That might be true to you but you and I know that Bradshaw did not win any of those games it was mainly the defense and running game. So again comparing Brady and Montana when they are that close the big game does matter nobody's pretending losses don't count or aren't as important however in the Super Bowl you need to be at your very best and Brady has not been. Just saying

Really? Bradshaw didnt win ANY of those games? I guess throwing for over 300 yards twice and being MVP in SB 13 and 14 doesnt count. Nevermind that the Steelers in SB 13 could only get 66 yards rushing, that the defense gave up 31 points, and that Bradshaw threw 4 tds. Lets disregard his 119 passer rating or that he outplayed Staubach.

Maybe we should also disregard SB 14 and give all the credit to that vaunted running game. Hell, nevermind that Pitt could only get 84 rushing yards and that Bradshaw threw once again for over 300 and was MVP. He did nothing to help win. LMAO

Maybe you should actually do some research before you post nonsense. Bradshaw was excellent in 3 of the Steelers 4 SB wins and was a huge reason they won

Originally posted by elguapo:

That might be true to you but you and I know that Bradshaw did not win any of those games it was mainly the defense and running game. So again comparing Brady and Montana when they are that close the big game does matter nobody's pretending losses don't count or aren't as important however in the Super Bowl you need to be at your very best and Brady has not been. Just saying

We both agree Montana is better so we're not far apart but at what point do you stop? Is 6-2 better than 4-0? 7-2 better than 4-0? 2-0 better than 5-2? How fixated can you be about losing in the SB? It's an argument I hate because it's saying Eli was better than Jim Kelly. No, he wasn't. I don't care about the losses. If Tom got to the SB 10 years straight and went 5-5 Tom wins. 5>4 but the biggest reason why Tom has more rings is because today's rule make it easier to stay healthy. Give me dominance over longevity. As of now we were more dominant.

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:
don't feed the troll

Watch it buddy you were warned. Keep it up and you will get a timeout if that's what you are gunning for. Give it a rest. Pathetic post by you

I don't get it. He's not talking to you. Why upset?

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:
don't feed the troll

Watch it buddy you were warned. Keep it up and you will get a timeout if that's what you are gunning for. Give it a rest. Pathetic post by you

I don't get it. He's not talking to you. Why upset?

He was telling Nate not to feed the troll.. otherwise known as Elguapo.

Originally posted by Vegasodds101:
Again...a one sided argument. When did Montana win without a top 4 defense? He did't so you can't use that as an argument against Brady. Brady in 2011 brought the 2nd worst ranked defense (at the time) in NFL history to the SB. Do I really think that was the 2nd worst defense ever, no but it wasn't good. Until this year's SB, the Patriots had the lead at the two minute warning in all 6 previous SB's. Pats great defense gave it up in 4 of those games and tried really hard to in 2014. Brady was good enough to get the team back for GW kicks in two of those games. Add what he did in the last two super bowls traiing by 10 and 25 points respectively is just amazing clutchness...5 GW drives in Brady's 5 wins and should have been a 6th in 2007 if their GREAT defense didn't give it up.

Montana did play the Bungles twice, and Miami and Denver in his 4 appearances. The 8O's was the decade of the NFC. The 80's AFC were probably the worst decade ever for a conference. Joe took advantage and beat up on weaker teams. Brady has a tougher resume in SB....Greatest Show on Turf, Seahawks with their generational defense, and the the Falcons with one of the best offensive sets of all time to name a few. There are plenty of reasons why most people have Brady as the GOAT, these are just a few. Nobody is putting Montana down, he was amazing, he just wasn't as perfect as you want him to be.

You are totally messed up and the way you are contorting your arguements to put down Joe is really ridiculous and disrespectful to Joe.

Most posters here don't disrespect Tom Brady. He's a great quarterback, and his longevity is unbelievable. It's so off the charts, he might very well be the Goat for that factor alone. But, that's not going to be decided now, or for the next year or two. When you say ridiculous stuff like Joe was lucky to be in a great system, insulting the teams he beat and passing it off as the AFC sucked (and ignoring the NFC teams he beat to get there), then I must say you are way more disrespectful than Diaz. I can't believe a person who loves and appreciates football wouldn't appreciate what Joe has achieved and just look at his career as an arguing point to support their own heroes. It's really not being much of a football fan.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by elguapo:
That might be true to you but you and I know that Bradshaw did not win any of those games it was mainly the defense and running game. So again comparing Brady and Montana when they are that close the big game does matter nobody's pretending losses don't count or aren't as important however in the Super Bowl you need to be at your very best and Brady has not been. Just saying

We both agree Montana is better so we're not far apart but at what point do you stop? Is 6-2 better than 4-0? 7-2 better than 4-0? 2-0 better than 5-2? How fixated can you be about losing in the SB? It's an argument I hate because it's saying Eli was better than Jim Kelly. No, he wasn't. I don't care about the losses. If Tom got to the SB 10 years straight and went 5-5 Tom wins. 5>4 but the biggest reason why Tom has more rings is because today's rule make it easier to stay healthy. Give me dominance over longevity. As of now we were more dominant.

I've already presented the probabilities.

4-0 == 6% chance.
5-2 == 16% chance.

The 4-0 is about three times less likely to occur.

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
He was telling Nate not to feed the troll.. otherwise known as Elguapo.

I thought he was telling elguapo not to feed the nate troll. Sorry.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

I've already presented the probabilities.

4-0 == 6% chance.
5-2 == 16% chance.

The 4-0 is about three times less likely to occur.

16% chance and 1 person in history has been to 7 Super Bowls? I don't trust your math. It just doesn't apply.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
I've already presented the probabilities.

4-0 == 6% chance.
5-2 == 16% chance.

The 4-0 is about three times less likely to occur.

16% chance and 1 person in history has been to 7 Super Bowls? I don't trust your math. It just doesn't apply.

No I worked it out.

It's legit.

It's a super simple standard equation. No one will disagree Mclusky can confirm.

The probability of getting exactly k successes in n trials is given by the probability mass function:

for k = 0, 1, 2, ..., n, where



Do the math when n = 4 and k = 4.

Do the math when n = 7 and k = 5.

Assume each team has a 1/2 chance of winning the super bowl.

(Zero factorial == 1)

Guess what?

there's an online calculator that will calculate the probablilites. Don't trust me. Do it yourself.

Instructions are easy.

http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

Probabilities aside, Tom Brady left his pregnant girlfriend and has posed as a model for Tommy Hilfiger. The guy is a b***h.

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Really? Bradshaw didnt win ANY of those games? I guess throwing for over 300 yards twice and being MVP in SB 13 and 14 doesnt count. Nevermind that the Steelers in SB 13 could only get 66 yards rushing, that the defense gave up 31 points, and that Bradshaw threw 4 tds. Lets disregard his 119 passer rating or that he outplayed Staubach.

Maybe we should also disregard SB 14 and give all the credit to that vaunted running game. Hell, nevermind that Pitt could only get 84 rushing yards and that Bradshaw threw once again for over 300 and was MVP. He did nothing to help win. LMAO

Maybe you should actually do some research before you post nonsense. Bradshaw was excellent in 3 of the Steelers 4 SB wins and was a huge reason they won

No maybe you should think before you post. If the running game was basically the Steelers offense because as we all know Bradshaw was not a very good passer. His career touchdown to interception ratio was one to one. So getting the MVP award does not necessarily mean that player was the main reason they won. The teams he played focused on stopping the run almost every single play so of course the passing lanes were open when you have two hall of fame receivers so again almost any quarterback can throw 300 yards if the opposing defense is stacking up against the run and you have two Hall of Fame wide receivers getting open all day. Think!!!! And you might want to do some research before blindly saying that Bradshaw was the MVP and a huge reason they won 2 Super Bowls. Did you even watch those games and see the WRs making plays all day, that is extremely shortsighted. besides that please use some common sense. If you watch football you will see that when teams load the box with eight and nine people quite often the passing game opens up. I guess you forgot about that didn't you?

Anyways, here's to Montana the GOAT. I loved the fact that he was mobile so that helped him under pressure whereas a great qb like Brady has folded against the giants twice and last year against the broncos. That would of helped Brady but that is another attribute (not a necessity but when talking about the 2 that could be the difference in the best) why Montana was the full package and Brady was not. Also, Montana was great in every Super Bowl and Tom Brady was more of a game manager. Montana never was like that. He never needed his defense he was the offense. Brady took longer to develop and as Bill wall said Joe Montana was great from the point he put on a bib. Hahaha. Funny but true.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

No I worked it out.

It's legit.

It's a super simple standard equation. No one will disagree Mclusky can confirm.

The probability of getting exactly k successes in n trials is given by the probability mass function:

for k = 0, 1, 2, ..., n, where



Do the math when n = 4 and k = 4.

Do the math when n = 7 and k = 5.

Assume each team has a 1/2 chance of winning the super bowl.

(Zero factorial == 1)

Your problem is your only factoring in the SB like the rest of the season means jack sh and any year they fall short in the wild card is irrelevant. Your formula is pretty flawed.

Let's say Montana and Brady both had a 10 year career with the same SB results they have now. NE and Tom would be more dominant. 5 SB wins, 7 appearances > 4 SB wins in 4 SB appearances but say 6 wildcard losses. It's not the case Brady has a lot more years than Joe but people need to get over the SB record. You either won it all or fell short every year. Montana doesn't get a free pass because we lost in the wild card not the SB.

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Really? Bradshaw didnt win ANY of those games? I guess throwing for over 300 yards twice and being MVP in SB 13 and 14 doesnt count. Nevermind that the Steelers in SB 13 could only get 66 yards rushing, that the defense gave up 31 points, and that Bradshaw threw 4 tds. Lets disregard his 119 passer rating or that he outplayed Staubach.

Maybe we should also disregard SB 14 and give all the credit to that vaunted running game. Hell, nevermind that Pitt could only get 84 rushing yards and that Bradshaw threw once again for over 300 and was MVP. He did nothing to help win. LMAO

Maybe you should actually do some research before you post nonsense. Bradshaw was excellent in 3 of the Steelers 4 SB wins and was a huge reason they won

No maybe you should think before you post. If the running game was basically the Steelers offense because as we all know Bradshaw was not a very good passer. His career touchdown to interception ratio was one to one. So getting the MVP award does not necessarily mean that player was the main reason they won. The teams he played focused on stopping the run almost every single play so of course the passing lanes were open when you have two hall of fame receivers so again almost any quarterback can throw 300 yards if the opposing defense is stacking up against the run and you have two Hall of Fame wide receivers getting open all day. Think!!!! And you might want to do some research before blindly saying that Bradshaw was the MVP and a huge reason they won 2 Super Bowls. Did you even watch those games and see the WRs making plays all day, that is extremely shortsighted. besides that please use some common sense. If you watch football you will see that when teams load the box with eight and nine people quite often the passing game opens up. I guess you forgot about that didn't you?

Anyways, here's to Montana the GOAT. I loved the fact that he was mobile so that helped him under pressure whereas a great qb like Brady has folded against the giants twice and last year against the broncos. That would of helped Brady but that is another attribute (not a necessity but when talking about the 2 that could be the difference in the best) why Montana was the full package and Brady was not. Also, Montana was great in every Super Bowl and Tom Brady was more of a game manager. Montana never was like that. He never needed his defense he was the offense. Brady took longer to develop and as Bill wall said Joe Montana was great from the point he put on a bib. Hahaha. Funny but true.

LMAO. This might be the dumbest post Ive ever seen in here