- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This is why Super Bowl rings are mostly irrelevant
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:47 pm to catholictigerfan
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:47 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:Maybe you won't, but not me.
But when the Brady greatest QB debate comes up, you won't look at almost Super Bowl wins you will look at Super bowl wins.
quote:He is better than those 2 before tonight. And Bradshaw, are you kidding me right now?
Brady 4 Super Bowls
Bradshaw 4 Super Bowls
Montana 4 Super Bowls.
if Brady only had 3 super bowls do you think he would win the argument as greatest QB ever?
quote:Again, for you maybe
Yes Super Bowl rings are relevant. It's not the only thing but when it comes to debating the greatest QBs in NFL history championships are a huge part of it.
2
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:47 pm to shel311
Is he that amount of great if that happens to him in all 6 Super Bowls? What if teams scored on the pats late and won in other playoff games and he had 0 Super Bowls but his stats remained exactly the same as now? Where do you draw the line on this extrapolation? At some point, you gotta win, right? I don't know, just asking.
Is Matt Ryan the same amount of good because he didn't convert 4th down against the niners a few years ago? I mean that one pass makes him no better or worse overall as a quarterback. No single play can have that effect, right?
Now take that and apply it across every big play ever and what happens?
Is Matt Ryan the same amount of good because he didn't convert 4th down against the niners a few years ago? I mean that one pass makes him no better or worse overall as a quarterback. No single play can have that effect, right?
Now take that and apply it across every big play ever and what happens?
This post was edited on 2/1/15 at 9:50 pm
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:48 pm to shel311
So what's ur QB rankings? I have a feeling giy posted this because of Peyton's sucking in postseason play.
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:48 pm to Methuselah
quote:No, the 1 play is my exact logic
I think the flaw in your logic is that you are concentrating on one play.
quote:WHy do you take my entire premise as a knock on Brady? I'm saying I'd think just as highly of him if he had 3 titles compared to 4 or even 6? Isn't that me being pro-Brady?
He had to do a lot of good things (and overcome some bad things) to get his team to be in that position. And, as others have said he had to do a lot during the regular season and playoffs to even be there.
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:50 pm to rintintin
quote:Actually, I'm using the full body of work, not the 1 play.
Your logic is off. You're trying to use one play as an example of why SB rings don't matter, all while ignoring everything that makes them the most coveted hardware in sports, and that's a full season's body of work topped off with performing on the ultimate stage.
I'm using everything to say that 1 play doesn't define him or change anything, because he had nothing to do with it.
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:51 pm to shel311
You know damn right this Super Bowl is big for Brady as being considered the greatest. I understand what you're saying but winning 4 goes an extremely long way
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:51 pm to rockchlkjayhku11
quote:Yes
Is he that amount of great if that happens to him in all 6 Super Bowls?
quote:I don't think so, which is why Dan Marino is considered top 3 all time by most, or plenty at least.
At some point, you gotta win, right? I don't know, just asking.
quote:Ok, but you're talking about plays the QB, or whoever, have an actual say in the outcome of that play, that's the difference, and crux of my premise.
Now take that and apply it across every big play ever and what happens?
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:52 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
blah blah blah,
Well, can't argue with that.
quote:
Just think about this debate who is better
Brady 4 Super Bowls
Bradshaw 4 Super Bowls Montana 4 Super Bowls.
if Brady only had 3 super bowls do you think he would win the argument as greatest QB ever?
He could. All you have to say is that he did more than the other two with less talent around him.
If your only rebuttal is "he doesn't have as many rings" you haven't won any argument in my opinion.
And of course, there is always the old "who's better, Dilfer or Marino argument".
This post was edited on 2/1/15 at 9:56 pm
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:52 pm to shel311
quote:
He is better than those 2 before tonight. And Bradshaw, are you kidding me right now?
I just listed what QBs had 4 super bowl rings. Obviously it's Montana and Brady.
5 years down the road people forget about how things happened.
How many people remember that Brady lead two go ahead drives against the Giants before they responded and won that game?
No-one, in 20 years when the Brady like QB arises, people will focus on one thing, rings. Brady has 4 Montana has 4. No-one cares about close calls. You may but when those arguments happen in the future, when how they got to those games are a distant memory, rings will matter not plays.
No-one disagrees that Brady is an amazing QB. No-one disagrees that Brady is just as good as a QB if he won or not. But what everyone disagrees with is your logical conclusion, rings don't matter, well they do.
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:52 pm to ZeeDustin
quote:Rodgers
So what's ur QB rankings? I have a feeling giy posted this because of Peyton's sucking in postseason play.
Brady
Manning
Rodgers lacks the longevity, but he's played the game at a higher level than any QB ever, actually by a fairly wide margin too.
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:53 pm to Chuckiee
quote:To you, perhaps, not me.
You know damn right this Super Bowl is big for Brady as being considered the greatest.
quote:He's not great because he won 4...he won 4 because he's great. That sounds so ridiculous, but it makes sense in my head
I understand what you're saying but winning 4 goes an extremely long way
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:54 pm to shel311
quote:
No, the 1 play is my exact logic
Using one play and one player as your logic is bad logic. You are trying to make a very bold statement, that SB rings are meaningless, by using one player and one play as an example.
Maybe if you want to just say "this is why winning this SB is irrelevant in determining Brady's legacy", then you have a valid argument.
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:54 pm to ZereauxSum
quote:
He could. All you have to say is that he did more than the other two with less talent around him.
If your only rebuttal is "he doesn't have as many rings" you haven't won any argument in my opinion.
And of course, there is always the old "who's better, Dilfer or Marion argument".
I'm not saying that rings are the only thing that matter, I'm arguing against rings don't matter, when they obviously do.
Again how many people remember the two brady drives to take the lead against the Giants, not many I wouldn't think.
I would agree that rings are one of many factors in determining who is the best QB of all time, but saying that is irrelevant is just stupid.
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:55 pm to hiltacular
quote:
I am already seeing Brady is the goat all over twitter from reputable sources so yes, I agree with you. Brady did enough to win this game, but he also did enough to lose. This game doesn't change his career
Agree the stupid playcall gave him the ring
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:55 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:I do. Again, that's my point. You don't have to think like everyone else does.
How many people remember that Brady lead two go ahead drives against the Giants before they responded and won that game?
No-one,
quote:That doesn't make those people right.
in 20 years when the Brady like QB arises, people will focus on one thing, rings. Brady has 4 Montana has 4. No-one cares about close calls. You may but when those arguments happen in the future, when how they got to those games are a distant memory, rings will matter not plays.
quote:This contradicts your previous statement that he's just as good whether they won or loss, fwiw.
But what everyone disagrees with is your logical conclusion, rings don't matter, well they do.
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:56 pm to rintintin
quote:Mostly irrelevant, to be exact.
You are trying to make a very bold statement, that SB rings are meaningless
quote:Isn't that what I've said for 6 pages?
Maybe if you want to just say "this is why winning this SB is irrelevant in determining Brady's legacy", then you have a valid argument.
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:56 pm to shel311
quote:
Rodgers
Brady
Manning
Easy
Brady wins when it matters. Manning Chokes, Rodgers can't seem to get there.
It's hard to argue that anyone in the NFL has a better body of work than brady, or even a better QB. Yes his talent has fallen off, he isn't the brady of old. But he has 4 super bowl rings, played in 6. He is clearly the best QB of this generation if not all time.
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:57 pm to shel311
quote:
3 rings, 4 rings, he's literally no different of a QB, no better or worse.
quote:Unless it was Wilson with those rings.
shel311
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:58 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:Who you got ranked higher on the all time list, Marino or Bradshaw.
I would agree that rings are one of many factors in determining who is the best QB of all time, but saying that is irrelevant is just stupid.
I assume Bradshaw, so then explain how they're not mostly irrelevant, if that's the case.
Posted on 2/1/15 at 9:59 pm to shel311
Pete Carroll only had an opportunity to completely frick the play call up b/c Kearse had a flukey, lucky as shite catch to get Seattle near the goal line.
Brady led NE to the go ahead score and has 4 rings.
Brady led NE to the go ahead score and has 4 rings.
Page 5 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News