Boolean
APIDTA
Muthafukk the Patriots* and anybody that love them till the casket drops 

exactly why stats don't matter. I'll go the easy route here though. Brady has the biggest choke job in north American sports history on his resume. 18-1. Joe does not. He never gave away a pair of Lombardi trophies to a qb who looks like he has down syndrome.
He played in more Super Bowls than Montanaexactly why stats don't matter. I'll go the easy route here though. Brady has the biggest choke job in north American sports history on his resume. 18-1. Joe does not. He never gave away a pair of Lombardi trophies to a qb who looks like he has down syndrome.
when your argument is reduced to making predictions you have no argument. good day to you.4-2 in superbowls.
He will be 5-2 by early next year. When that happens all this nonsense will be thrown out the window.
joe didn't play as long in one place. New England doesn't have steve young waiting in the wings. The 49ers did. If young had them in the nfc title game and the super bowl, no reason to think joe wouldn't have. to keep him instead of young would have compromised them post 1994 though. Doesn't this forum consider losses in the title game or series worse than not making it anyway? That's all I hear when the coliseum talks championshipsHe played in more Super Bowls than Montana
Joe montana never lost 2 superbowls, let alone to a 9 and 7 team
Enjoy comparing the hollow passing stats of the last ten years compared to the 80s, that's a snake oil salesman argument.
the same argument gets used against everyone else who ever lost in the finals or world series or super bowl. As for 2011, losing to a 12-4 ravens team that was one of the best in franchise history might be less embarrassing than to a 9-7 giants team that was swept by Washington with rex grossman at qb (So not getting to the superbowl is better than getting to the superbowl is what you are saying? So losing earlier is better?
So not getting to the superbowl is better than getting to the superbowl is what you are saying? So losing earlier is better?
I almost forgot Washington swept us that yearthe same argument gets used against everyone else who ever lost in the finals or world series or super bowl. As for 2011, losing to a 12-4 ravens team that was one of the best in franchise history might be less embarrassing than to a 9-7 giants team that was swept by Washington with rex grossman at qb (at anyone losing twice in a season to a team with him under center).
Damn.....exactly why stats don't matter. I'll go the easy route here though. Brady has the biggest choke job in north American sports history on his resume. 18-1. Joe does not. He never gave away a pair of Lombardi trophies to a qb who looks like he has down syndrome.
Bryant has 5 to Michael having 6. not a good argumentIs kobe better than MJ now?![]()
You just criticized the other poster for making predictions and followed up by hypothesizing about Montana doing what Young did.joe didn't play as long in one place. New England doesn't have steve young waiting in the wings. The 49ers did. If young had them in the nfc title game and the super bowl, no reason to think joe wouldn't have. to keep him instead of young would have compromised them post 1994 though. Doesn't this forum consider losses in the title game or series worse than not making it anyway? That's all I hear when the coliseum talks championships![]()
to put this in perspective, only 2 quarterbacks threw for 4,000 yards in 2005. Brady and trent green. in 2009, ten threw for that many, with Donovan and warner falling just short, but I think their per game averages would be good enough if they played all 16 games, and by 2011, 3 of them threw for 5,000 with eli also throwin for 4,937Joe montana never lost 2 superbowls, let alone to a 9 and 7 team
Enjoy comparing the hollow passing stats of the last ten years compared to the 80s, that's a snake oil salesman argument.