+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 60

Thread: ESPN is actually comparig Tom Brady to Joe Montana....

  1. #41
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by BuffyBlueII View Post
    I know the statistics. Bart Starr had ice water in his veins in the post season and he led his team to more NFL Championships than any other QB.
    Quote Originally Posted by SweetZombieJesus View Post
    Really, 50 times easier? You didn't have 1/3 of the league making the playoffs back then, and no neutral site warm weather carpeted dome BS. Just two teams even qualified -- and an extra round in the late 60s as they moved towards the Super Bowl.In today's championships you've got more rounds to survive but you also have a much greater chance of getting into the tournament and the championship itself is played in air conditioned comfort not in the harsh cold elements with a frozen field.Are you a Yankee fan by some chance? You know it was the same way in baseball (one team in each league won the Pennant and they played in the WS, there was no LCS) until 1969, right? So all those World Series before 1977 only count for a quarter of a World Series, right?
    You're kidding right? Doesn't matter how many teams got in the playoffs. There was still only 1/3 of the current league actually competing in the regular season so the same teams will get in because your record doesnt matter. Not to mention smaller schedules.Also there were no overtimes. If it was a tie in a game it ended that way. The packers won a championship with a 7-1-6 record. Only 7 wins but they still qualified. Babysitting system. Who cares what the conditions were? R u kidding? That's all you got? The weather? Give me a break. Not to mention that players nowadays r more talented than those of old. They're not gonna be affected by weather. The weather was not suddenly worse because it helps your argument. "So all those World Series matches don't matter as much?" YES! Take off the homer Yankee glasses! The packers do not have 13 SBs. Old championships should be separated from new ones if one was easier. No matter the sport. They count but barely as much. Might as be NFC championships or division titles.

  2. #42
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by BuffyBlueII View Post
    They were still the top Championship at the time. Some would argue they are easier to win now.
    And "some" would be idiots. Give me a break. Smaller schedules. No over times. Less talented players. Simpler teams. Less teams.The packers qualified for a championship with a 7-1-6. And your telling me it was harder back cause your in bed with Bart Starr?? The championships count but so do NFC championships and division title.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,130
    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    And "some" would be idiots. Give me a break. Smaller schedules. No over times. Less talented players. Simpler teams. Less teams.The packers qualified for a championship with a 7-1-6. And your telling me it was harder back cause your in bed with Bart Starr?? The championships count but so do NFC championships and division title.
    No, I am not telling you that. I put up a question in response to a question. You seem to be babbling nonsense because apparently someone struck a nerve. Next you are going to state that Ahmad Bradshaw is a better RB than Jim Brown ever was because he plays a 16 game schedule.

    It is amazing how every generation there is a complaint about “the rules have made the game easier, you can’t hit now” or “they were all small and not talented back then” or “there schedules were smaller” etc......etc...... excuses. excuses. excuses. NFL Championships are NFL Championships and the way someone performs in those games are what matters.

  4. #44
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by BuffyBlueII View Post
    No, I am not telling you that. I put up a question in response to a question. You seem to be babbling nonsense because apparently someone struck a nerve. Next you are going to state that Ahmad Bradshaw is a better RB than Jim Brown ever was because he plays a 16 game schedule.It is amazing how every generation there is a complaint about “the rules have made the game easier, you can’t hit now” or “they were all small and not talented back then” or “there schedules were smaller” etc......etc...... excuses. excuses. excuses. NFL Championships are NFL Championships and the way someone performs in those games are what matters.
    It's amazing how many how old farts think that a league that didn't understand the forward pass somehow competes now. Excuse me sir the Sb hasn't been around for 10 years. People could harder in the 70s and 80s. And we're not talking about talent or Jim brown. We're talking about the fact you think that Bart Starr having 5 somehow puts him with joe Montana despite Starr being nothing being more than a game manager playing a weak league. Old farts and packet fans shy away from reality and call them excuses. Schedules do mean something cause shockingly enough 16 games is harder than 12. Also there's nothing more frustrating than guy living in the past.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,130
    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    It's amazing how many how old farts think that a league that didn't understand the forward pass somehow competes now. Excuse me sir the Sb hasn't been around for 10 years. People could harder in the 70s and 80s. And we're not talking about talent or Jim brown. We're talking about the fact you think that Bart Starr having 5 somehow puts him with joe Montana despite Starr being nothing being more than a game manager playing a weak league. Old farts and packet fans shy away from reality and call them excuses. Schedules do mean something cause shockingly enough 16 games is harder than 12. Also there's nothing more frustrating than guy living in the past.
    Kind of funny that you keep harping on “old farts” but you keep making the comparisons between the differences in the games and then get huffy when you are proven wrong.

    Using your logic. How long ago did Joe Montana play?

    “Old farts” and “Packers fans” are obviously not the only ones that bring up Bart Starr in the conversation since I am neither. Nice try on your part however.
    Last edited by BuffyBlueII; 01-19-2013 at 01:32 PM.

  6. #46
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by BuffyBlueII View Post
    Kind of funny that you keep harping on “old farts” but you keep making the comparisons between the differences in the games and then get huffy when you are proven wrong. Using your logic. How long ago did Joe Montana play?“Old farts” and “Packers fans” are obviously not the only ones that bring up Bart Starr in the conversation since I am neither. Nice try on your part however.
    I haven't been proven wrong. All you've done is insult me from the get go. You're little "excuses, excuses" point isn't a rebuttal. It's just u sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalala. And by your logic someone who lived the 80s with joe Montana is somehow an old fart(30 years old). "Since I am neither". Ok then you're just misguided which is worse than an old fart since you think a game manager is one the best ever just because he got the most easiest rings ever.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,130
    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    I haven't been proven wrong. All you've done is insult me from the get go. You're little "excuses, excuses" point isn't a rebuttal. It's just u sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalala. And by your logic someone who lived the 80s with joe Montana is somehow an old fart(30 years old). "Since I am neither". Ok then you're just misguided which is worse than an old fart since you think a game manager is one the best ever just because he got the most easiest rings ever.
    Never stated that you were an “old fart.” You have been insulting since your first response. However, your attempt at a point in regard to folks playing years ago also pertains to Joe Montana. If you want to go on about how the game has changed and this is harder now and athletes are better now, etc.....etc...... then why would it just pertain to folks from the 60 but not the 80s? I am not saying that I agree with that but it is your own perception that you discount and ignore when it doesn’t fit your argument and is used to prove you wrong.

    Your comment that Bart Starr, a QB that led his team to 5 NFL Championships and a guy that is a 2 time SuperBowl MVP, is a game manager shows just how little you know about football.

  8. #48
    All-Pro Roosevelt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Del Boca Vista
    Posts
    15,370
    Joe Montana > Brady.
    http://boards.giants.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=25347&dateline=138526  4905

  9. #49
    Veteran Rusty192's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Chad
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Roosevelt View Post
    Joe Montana > Brady.
    Agreed.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Roosevelt View Post
    Joe Montana > Brady.
    No he is not.

    Tom Brady is a better QB than Joe Montana ever was.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts