Peyton Manning's final numbers....
71,940 Yards*
539 Touchdowns*
186 Wins*
2 Super Bowls*
71,940 Yards*
539 Touchdowns*
186 Wins*
2 Super Bowls*
NFL Thread
- Thread starter Mithrandier
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
DinoDB1975
Super Freak
4-0 is a win percentage of 100 percent. 4-2 is a win percentage of 66 percent. Therefore, mathematically, 4-0 is better than 4-2.
Now if you're saying that Montana would have rather had the opportunity to play in two additional Super Bowls to possibly win two more, that's saying something else.
I hate to ask...what are the asterisks for?
Darth Madden
You Are A Tooooooy!!!
If Brady starts game 1 in 2021 come back and I'll send you a box of cookies.
But I will agree with you that 4-2 is better than 4-0. If wins are = then higher total trips is better.
Last edited:
Brady 35%. 6/17
Montana 26%. 4/15
4-2 is better than 4-0.
Asterisks are for HGH. Just like the same people put asterisks next to Brady for a rule he had no control of, filming one game in the wrong location, and no evidence of purposefully deflating footballs barely below the legal limit.... I have to put asterisks next to Manning's stats that were helped and inflated due to HGH.
If Brady starts game 1 in 2021 come back and I'll send you a box of cookies.
But I will agree with you that 4-2 is better than 4-0. If wins are = then higher total trips is better.
I will hold you to that box of cookies.
Oh man... listening to people argue that Peyton is the GOAT is laughable.
First Super Bowl came against the almighty Rex Grossman....
Second Super Bowl was won for him by the defense. Anyone with some decent football knowledge and a good arm could have won that Super Bowl.
His first Super Bowl loss was against a great QB and he threw the game ending int.
Second Super Bowl loss was with the greatest offense ever and he chokes on the first play which became probably one of the worst Super Bowls ever.
Tom Brady beat Kurt Warner on a game winning drive.
Tom Brady beat the Panthers on a game winning drive.
Tom Brady beat the Eagles with a go ahead drive.
Tom Brady has his team up in the final minute after leading a go ahead TD drive with under five minutes. Defense lost the game.
Tom Brady has his team up in the final minute after leading a go ahead TD drive with under five minutes. Defense lost the game.
Tom Brady leads the greatest Super Bowl comeback of all time against the greatest defense the NFL has seen to win the game.
Brady is GOAT. There is no argument for Manning as GOAT.
First Super Bowl came against the almighty Rex Grossman....
Second Super Bowl was won for him by the defense. Anyone with some decent football knowledge and a good arm could have won that Super Bowl.
His first Super Bowl loss was against a great QB and he threw the game ending int.
Second Super Bowl loss was with the greatest offense ever and he chokes on the first play which became probably one of the worst Super Bowls ever.
Tom Brady beat Kurt Warner on a game winning drive.
Tom Brady beat the Panthers on a game winning drive.
Tom Brady beat the Eagles with a go ahead drive.
Tom Brady has his team up in the final minute after leading a go ahead TD drive with under five minutes. Defense lost the game.
Tom Brady has his team up in the final minute after leading a go ahead TD drive with under five minutes. Defense lost the game.
Tom Brady leads the greatest Super Bowl comeback of all time against the greatest defense the NFL has seen to win the game.
Brady is GOAT. There is no argument for Manning as GOAT.
DinoDB1975
Super Freak
Okay.
I know I shouldn't bother arguing, but I'll bite. You can't just throw math out the window. 4-0 means 4 for 4 (4/4), which is 100%. 4-2 means 4 of 6 (4/6), which is 66%.
Those percentages you threw out are not reflective of your core argument that 4-2 is "better" than 4-0.
Brady reached the Super Bowl 6 times in 17 seasons. Your math is correct. 6/17 is 35%. Montana reached the Super Bowl four times in 15 seasons. Again, your math is correct. 4/15 is 26%. But 6/17 is NOT 4/6, just as 4/15 is NOT 4/4.
Math is OBJECTIVE and based on facts, quantifiable and measureable. So objectively, 4-0 is BETTER than 4-2. Now, your opinion that reaching the Super Bowl six times in 17 seasons with a record of 4-2 is better than reaching the Super Bowl 4 times in 15 seasons with a record of 4-0 is SUBJECTIVE and based on emotion, personal belief, and opinion...which you're entirely entitled to. Some may agree, like Darth Madden. But to argue that 4-2 is better than 4-0 and then throw out 6/17 and 4/15 to bolster the argument is a logical fallacy.
As far as the asterisks, that's what I assumed you meant. The HGH allegation has yet to be determined. If it is true, then those asterisks are valid.
Okay.
I know I shouldn't bother arguing, but I'll bite. You can't just throw math out the window. 4-0 means 4 for 4 (4/4), which is 100%. 4-2 means 4 of 6 (4/6), which is 66%.
Those percentages you threw out are not reflective of your core argument that 4-2 is "better" than 4-0.
Brady reached the Super Bowl 6 times in 17 seasons. Your math is correct. 6/17 is 35%. Montana reached the Super Bowl four times in 15 seasons. Again, your math is correct. 4/15 is 26%. But 6/17 is NOT 4/6, just as 4/15 is NOT 4/4.
Math is OBJECTIVE and based on facts, quantifiable and measureable. So objectively, 4-0 is BETTER than 4-2. Now, your opinion that reaching the Super Bowl six times in 17 seasons with a record of 4-2 is better than reaching the Super Bowl 4 times in 15 seasons with a record of 4-0 is SUBJECTIVE and based on emotion, personal belief, and opinion...which you're entirely entitled to. Some may agree, like Darth Madden. But to argue that 4-2 is better than 4-0 and then throw out 6/17 and 4/15 to bolster the argument is a logical fallacy.
As far as the asterisks, that's what I assumed you meant. The HGH allegation has yet to be determined. If it is true, then those asterisks are valid.
In football terms... not math terms... 4-2 is better than 4-0. No argument. The goal is to go and try to win the Super Bowl. Joe would rather have gone to the Super Bowl two more times and lose than not make it all. It is not subjective, it is fact. Six trips with four wins is better than four trips with four wins. Especially when those two losses are a combined total of 7 points and having your team up with less than a minute left.
No need to lecture me on math either.
mikedanger
Super Freak
If Joe went 2 more times he would be 6-0 and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle
Not in the Super Bowl era. Yes, how many times you make it is a big factor... not just if you have a 100% record in the Super Bowl.
I guess Dilfer is better than Kelly by that logic then.
DinoDB1975
Super Freak
I have to lecture you on math when you say 4-2 is better than 4-0 and then throw out 6/17 and 4/15 to back up your argument. You painted yourself in that corner.
Now, for you to say "Joe would rather have gone to the Super Bowl two more times and lose than not make it all" is just supposition. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. We don't know, neither of us are Joe Montana. I deal with the facts. Tom Brady is 4-2 and Joe Montana is 4-0. Those records are facts. Let's use the same factual numbers in your argument. If you asked Joe Montana "Hey Joe, if you could turn back time and play in the Super Bowl six times, but lose two, would you choose that over going four times and winning every time?", the answer may not be crystal clear. Sure, every player would like to maximize their chances of winning a title. But the comparison is 4-0 vs. 4-2, not 4-0 vs. a hypothetical 5-1 or 6-0.
I have to lecture you on math when you say 4-2 is better than 4-0 and then throw out 6/17 and 4/15 to back up your argument. You painted yourself in that corner.
Now, for you to say "Joe would rather have gone to the Super Bowl two more times and lose than not make it all" is just supposition. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. We don't know, neither of us are Joe Montana. I deal with the facts. Tom Brady is 4-2 and Joe Montana is 4-0. Those records are facts. Let's use the same factual numbers in your argument. If you asked Joe Montana "Hey Joe, if you could turn back time and play in the Super Bowl six times, but lose two, would you choose that over going four times and winning every time?", the answer may not be crystal clear. Sure, every player would like to maximize their chances of winning a title. But the comparison is 4-0 vs. 4-2, not 4-0 vs. a hypothetical 5-1 or 6-0.
Oh man... I thought you were smarter than this. I doubt you could lecture anything about math to me. My mathematical ability far exceeds that of a normal person.... probably exceeds most here as well.
You are so stuck on success rate. That is why I brought in the 6/17 vs 4/15. That success rate of going to the Super Bowl is higher for Brady.... The fact is... making the Super Bowl six times (and winning four) is better than just making the Super Bowl four times and winning all four times. Six is bigger than four.
I am not sure why you can't get this through your head. Going to the Super Bowl 6 times compared to 4 is a greater accomplishment. 4-2 is better than 4-0. There is nothing to argue in terms of football. Why would Montana want to strip himself twice of potential glory? Just so he can brag he went to two less Super Bowls than Brady? My arguement is based on facts. Every single player would rather go to two more Super Bowls than not. What a dumb thing to say that one would consider not wanting to go to the Super Bowl.... seriously
People just need to admit Brady is the GOAT.
Oh man... I thought you were smarter than this. I doubt you could lecture anything about math to me. My mathematical ability far exceeds that of a normal person.... probably exceeds most here as well.
You are so stuck on success rate. That is why I brought in the 6/17 vs 4/15. That success rate of going to the Super Bowl is higher for Brady.... The fact is... making the Super Bowl six times (and winning four) is better than just making the Super Bowl four times and winning all four times. Six is bigger than four.
I am not sure why you can't get this through your head. Going to the Super Bowl 6 times compared to 4 is a greater accomplishment. 4-2 is better than 4-0. There is nothing to argue in terms of football. Why would Montana want to strip himself twice of potential glory? Just so he can brag he went to two less Super Bowls than Brady? My arguement is based on facts. Every single player would rather go to two more Super Bowls than not. What a dumb thing to say that one would consider not wanting to go to the Super Bowl.... seriously
People just need to admit Brady is the GOAT.
Going and losing makes Brady a LOSER by definition. And if your a two time loser in the biggest game your can't be the GOAT.
One Qb is known for an obscure rule that gave him a second chance to win a game he had lost. One is know for one of the greatest super palm moments ever and something called the Catch. One qb played for a team who got caught cheating, and is currently in court for a second cheating scandal. One QB has no such things.
Get over you boy crush on Brady and admit that your wrong and Montana is the only true GOAT.
Murray to the Titans
My god....... this post is terrible.
He has the most Super Bowl appearances. Tied for most Super Bowl QB wins. What are you going to say when he wins his fifth ring next year? He will break all the stats within the next four years. What will you say when Brady has the most rings, most wins, most yards, most TDs?
Better stats, more trips to AFC/NFC title game, more trips to Super Bowl, same amount of SB wins all with less talent. Hell, one could argue Jerry Rice carried Joe to those Super Bowls by looking at what Jerry did without Joe. Rice put up just as good if not better numbers without Joe.
Brady is GOAT. Admit it.
Brady never cheated. Admit it.
If all of that happens and he is found to not have cheated sure. I will bet that all of those NEVER happen.
DinoDB1975
Super Freak
Ah, yes...the tried and true millennial method of internet debating...disparaging/insulting an individual who you know nothing about and then posting your self-confirmed credentials. I didn't know we had the next John Nash here. If your mathematical ability is so high, then by all means prove the mathematical theorem that 4-0 is better than 4-2.
If and when you do make it your hero's alma mater (or whatever institute of higher learning you go to), take a basic Logic course and a Statistics course. You may want to work on your reading comprehension as well.
I am stuck on nothing. It was YOUR OWN post that stated 4-2 is better than 4-0, to which I argued. Those are the parameters of this argument. That's it. Now, had you had the foresight in your argument to state that Tom Brady, by virtue of him making it to the Super Bowl six times in 17 seasons, is better than Joe Montana's rate of making the Super Bowl four times in 15 seasons, than you would have a valid argument. But of course, you ignore the initial debate of whether 4-0 is superior to 4-2, and bring in additional data that is irrelevant to the original talking point. Does not compute.
If that's your argument and the extent of your mathematical ability, I don't know what to say.
You are making a straw man argument. AGAIN, the original point I argued was whether a 4-0 record in the Super Bowl is better than a 4-2 record, NOT whether Joe Montana would have rather made it to the big game six times. That's asinine. Of course any player would want to maximize his potential. But again, reading comprehension fails you, and you make a straw man argument in an attempt to prove your point. The facts are Joe Montana won the Super Bowl four times on four tries, and Tom Brady won the Super Bowl four times in six tries. The corresponding debate would be would Joe Montana rather have a 4-0 record in the Super Bowl or a 4-2 record, NOT "Hey Joe, would you rather go to the Super Bowl four times or six times?"
Please prove your reading comprehension and quote were I stated this to prove this. Refer to my previous posts and see above for a summary, because you won't be able to.
As you so logically present, "Six is bigger than four", well, that's a fact. You're right about that. But "Going to the Super Bowl 6 times compared to 4 is a greater accomplishment" is an opinion, not a fact.
Again, let's go full circle and go to the original argument, which you stated without any caveats and qualifiers: 4-2 is better than 4-0. Arguing this point with the two defined records is NOT THE SAME as arguing if a player would rather go to Super Bowl four times or six times.
But hey, believe what you will Junior.
All the regulars who've been here as long as I have and have made the NFL thread an enjoyable forum, my apologies. I shouldn't have taken the bait. Should have just ignored it. This will be the last I post on it.
Eagles are purging themselves of Chip Kelly's moves. They're trading Kiko Alonso and Byron Maxwell to the Dolphins as well. They did resign Sam Bradford, however.
Similar threads
