Montana's got company

[Jimmy3Putt]

There's no comparison in my mind.
Joe was better.

Brady plays in an age where you can't touch the qb or the receiver.
Joe was punished by those giant teams of the 80's.
Look at some of the old clips.
They were hammering him after every pass.
All of those hits are 15 yard penalties today.

Not to mention Walsh liked to f with Joe.
Pulling him for Young for no reason... Unimaginable.

 

[wizards8507]

I'm disappointed Wiz. It took you almost 3 hours to reply to this thread.

There's no doubt Brady is a great QB and should be ranked up with the best of them. But if you want to really dissect the debate, consider the following.

Brady is one of the most accomplished QB's in NFL history.

I made no statement about Brady's standing in NFL history. Frankly, I'm not nearly as informed about NFL history as I am about, say, MLB history, so I'll leave that discussion to others. I was responding to a very specific point about the relative quality of going 4 for 4 in Super Bowls versus going 4 for 6.

3. If the Seahawks don't have a brain fart in the last minute, NE wouldn't have won and Brady wouldn't be MVP.

If the Seahawks don't have the luckiest catch in Super Bowl history, they're not even in the red zone and we don't have the conversation about play calling at all.

4. In two of his SB titles, Brady didn't drive the team to winning TD's. He came up short and NE was forced to go for the FG which AV nailed both times. One of those drives Brady was aided by a pretty good KO return.

Why would you need to lead your team to winning TDs if it's tied and a game-winning field goal does the trick? You're not calling plays to get in the end zone in those situations, you're calling plays to get inside the 20-30.

1. Brady misses a year and his replacement goes 11-5 or 12-4. Then goes to KC doesn't do squat. Is Brady the product of a good system?
2. Brady played pretty decent last night but most of his passes were dink and dunks. Adleman and the other guy made life a lot easier by making 7 & 8 yards out of a 2-3 yard pass. Brady missed badly on a number of deeper routes.

Two words: Randy Moss. Sure, Matt Cassel went 11-5 with Randy Moss, big deal. Brady had him for one season and went 18-1, leading the greatest passing offense of all time. If Brady had Randy Moss for as many seasons as Montana had Jerry Rice, neither the statistics nor championships would be as close as they are when Brady's best receivers have been role players like Troy Brown and Julian Edelman.

 

[ulukinatme]

"Never lost"? Who cares? It's way more impressive to get there six times and win four than only get there four times and win them all. Losing a Super Bowl is still better than failing to make it to the Super Bowl in the first place.

It's like... which is more impressive? Having sex with four super models and making out with two others, or just having sex with four super models.

Brady has had sex with a super model, not sure if Joe has. Dang Joe loses by a pussy.

Joe married a model, he did alright I think, not sure how old she is here

As far as the debate between Joe and Brady, I think Brady has cemented a very good legacy, but I side with Joe here. He was 4-0 at the Super Bowl, and Brady just passed Joe's Super Bowl TD record on his 6th attempt. I'd argue that Brady has the benefit of a more pass friendly league today that makes it easier to inflate his numbers, not to mention there are a number of rules today to protect the QB that Joe didn't have back in the day.

 

[wizards8507]

Brady plays in an age where you can't touch the qb or the receiver.
Joe was punished by those giant teams of the 80's.
Look at some of the old clips.
They were hammering him after every pass.
All of those hits are 15 yard penalties today.

That's a valid point when it comes to statistics, but it has nothing to do with wins and losses. While Montana was getting beat up more than Brady, his defense was also allowed to beat up on the opponents' quarterbacks in a way that the Patriots' defense isn't today. It's easier to have a long career with the modern rules, but it's no easier to win football games.

 

[autry_denson]

1. Brady misses a year and his replacement goes 11-5 or 12-4. Then goes to KC doesn't do squat. Is Brady the product of a good system?

Brady misses a year and a team that had just gone 16-0 doesn't make the playoffs - happens to be the only season the Patriots missed the playoffs since 2002.

 

[IrishLax]

I made no statement about Brady's standing in NFL history. Frankly, I'm not nearly as informed about NFL history as I am about, say, MLB history, so I'll leave that discussion to others. I was responding to a very specific point about the relative quality of going 4 for 4 in Super Bowls versus going 4 for 6.

If the Seahawks don't have the luckiest catch in Super Bowl history, they're not even in the red zone and we don't have the conversation about play calling at all.

Was that play on 4th down? Oh yeah, it wasn't? It was on first down inside the New England 40 with over a minute to play? Terrible logic.

Why would you need to lead your team to winning TDs if it's tied and a game-winning field goal does the trick? You're not calling plays to get in the end zone in those situations, you're calling plays to get inside the 20-30.


Two words: Randy Moss. Sure, Matt Cassel went 11-5 with Randy Moss, big deal. Brady had him for one season and went 18-1, leading the greatest passing offense of all time. If Brady had Randy Moss for as many seasons as Montana had Jerry Rice, neither the statistics nor championships would be as close as they are when Brady's best receivers have been role players like Troy Brown and Julian Edelman.

No, it isn't. And that entire concluding paragraph is just more terrible logic.

 

[wizards8507]

Was that play on 4th down? Oh yeah, it wasn't? It was on first down inside the New England 40 with over a minute to play? Terrible logic.

No, it isn't. And that entire concluding paragraph is just more terrible logic.

You're right. Poor logic. Of course I should have used step-by-step deductive reasoning to arrive at an infallible conclusion about the greatest quarterback of all time.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

That's a valid point when it comes to statistics, but it has nothing to do with wins and losses. While Montana was getting beat up more than Brady, his defense was also allowed to beat up on the opponents' quarterbacks in a way that the Patriots' defense isn't today. It's easier to have a long career with the modern rules, but it's no easier to win football games.

^Exactly right.

 

[Irish#1]

I made no statement about Brady's standing in NFL history. Frankly, I'm not nearly as informed about NFL history as I am about, say, MLB history, so I'll leave that discussion to others. I was responding to a very specific point about the relative quality of going 4 for 4 in Super Bowls versus going 4 for 6.


If the Seahawks don't have the luckiest catch in Super Bowl history, they're not even in the red zone and we don't have the conversation about play calling at all.


Why would you need to lead your team to winning TDs if it's tied and a game-winning field goal does the trick? You're not calling plays to get in the end zone in those situations, you're calling plays to get inside the 20-30.


Two words: Randy Moss. Sure, Matt Cassel went 11-5 with Randy Moss, big deal. Brady had him for one season and went 18-1, leading the greatest passing offense of all time. If Brady had Randy Moss for as many seasons as Montana had Jerry Rice, neither the statistics nor championships would be as close as they are when Brady's best receivers have been role players like Troy Brown and Julian Edelman.

LOL I knew I could count on you.

"If the Seahawks don't have the luckiest catch in Super Bowl history, they're not even in the red zone and we don't have the conversation about play calling at all."

I could argue that it was a great play and the receiver kept his focus. But if you don't think the Seahawks handed the game over with the INT, then you're not being objective. I could argue that the Seahawks let the Pats back in the game. Up by ten and they start throwing the ball instead of running? Those three and outs helped NE get back in the game.

Let's also keep in mind that Montana played less games each year. Today's QB's have the luxury of extra games to add onto their stats and today's game is all about passing.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

LOL I knew I could count on you.

"If the Seahawks don't have the luckiest catch in Super Bowl history, they're not even in the red zone and we don't have the conversation about play calling at all."

I could argue that it was a great play and the receiver kept his focus. But if you don't think the Seahawks handed the game over with the INT, then you're not being objective. I could argue that the Seahawks let the Pats back in the game. Up by ten and they start throwing the ball instead of running? Those three and outs helped NE get back in the game.

Let's also keep in mind that Montana played less games each year. Today's QB's have the luxury of extra games to add onto their stats and today's game is all about passing.

You can argue about that play all day long. That's fine. But the fact is, the play happened. So did the Tyree play. No one is taking away the Giants win because it was crazy. No one would have thought much about the play if the DB hadn't jumped the route. It would have been another bold move by Carroll.

Also, Montana had 16 game seasons for his entire career.

Joe Montana NFL Football Statistics | Pro-Football-Reference.com

The league is more passing dominant, but the number of games is the same.

 

[IrishLax]

Truth is Brady is absolutely in the discussion with Montana (duh... hence the ongoing discussion here...) and you can make a pretty strong case in either direction.

The thing with Montana is that if he doesn't get hurt in that 1990 NFC championship game he probably wins 5 and maybe more. They ended up losing that game after he went out with injury by 2 points and then the Giants went on to beat the Bills. And then after that, Montana missed seasons in favor of Steve Young before finally being dealt. Brady also missed a season with injury, but in different circumstances.

Montana didn't have Rice for his first two Super Bowls. Brady had relatively terrible WRs for his first few, but it's also hard to ignore how good those defenses were. So the "who had more help" argument is a bit of wash also.

Almost every data point (save raw statistics) is similar/comparable between the two. The difference in stats is easily explained away by Montana's lost years + all of the rule changes to make the league more passing friendly. You can't compare raw passing stats between eras.

 

[kmoose]

Carroll's decision to throw the ball on the goal line was not as crazy as people have made it out to be. I'm not saying it was a good decision, but it wasn't "stupid".

Seattle has the ball at the NE 5 yard line with 1:14 left, and one timeout. Down here, where everyone is going to pile in close, if you run the ball it is going to take a lot of time off of the clock. The defense is going to pile on, and take their sweet-@ss time getting up off of the pile. So you are probably going to have to throw the ball at least once, anyway. You got a good gain on 1st down, and the defense left their jumbo goal line package out there. So the best time to throw is on 2nd down. It's not Carroll's fault that his QB couldn't read the defender on what equates to a simple slant route. It's not like Marshawn Lynch is incapable of being stoned at the line of scrimmage, and you were not going to have time to run him 4 times, with only 1 timeout. And heaven help you if someone gets injured and you either lose that timeout or have a runoff of time.

 

[pkt77242]

Truth is Brady is absolutely in the discussion with Montana (duh... hence the ongoing discussion here...) and you can make a pretty strong case in either direction.

The thing with Montana is that if he doesn't get hurt in that 1990 NFC championship game he probably wins 5 and maybe more. They ended up losing that game after he went out with injury by 2 points and then the Giants went on to beat the Bills. And then after that, Montana missed seasons in favor of Steve Young before finally being dealt. Brady also missed a season with injury, but in different circumstances.

Montana didn't have Rice for his first two Super Bowls. Brady had relatively terrible WRs for his first few, but it's also hard to ignore how good those defenses were. So the "who had more help" argument is a bit of wash also.

Almost every data point (save raw statistics) is similar/comparable between the two. The difference in stats is easily explained away by Montana's lost years + all of the rule changes to make the league more passing friendly. You can't compare raw passing stats between eras.

I think you are forgetting how good some of those SF defenses were. In 1988 they were 3rd in YPG (and 8th in pts/game), and in 1989 they were 4th in yards per game and 3rd in pts per game. In 1984 they were 10th in YPG but 1st in Points/per game. SF defenses during the Super Bowl years definitely don't get enough love for how good they were.

 

[NDohio]

Carroll's decision to throw the ball on the goal line was not as crazy as people have made it out to be. I'm not saying it was a good decision, but it wasn't "stupid".

Seattle has the ball at the NE 5 yard line with 1:14 left, and one timeout. Down here, where everyone is going to pile in close, if you run the ball it is going to take a lot of time off of the clock. The defense is going to pile on, and take their sweet-@ss time getting up off of the pile. So you are probably going to have to throw the ball at least once, anyway. You got a good gain on 1st down, and the defense left their jumbo goal line package out there. So the best time to throw is on 2nd down. It's not Carroll's fault that his QB couldn't read the defender on what equates to a simple slant route. It's not like Marshawn Lynch is incapable of being stoned at the line of scrimmage, and you were not going to have time to run him 4 times, with only 1 timeout. And heaven help you if someone gets injured and you either lose that timeout or have a runoff of time.

I agree throwing on second down is an OK way to go. But when you are on the one, there is no such thing as a simple slant. The field is so condensed that it's entirely too crowded in the middle of the field to run that play. Also, you have arguably the best scrambling QB in the game. An outside the hash pass of some sort or a roll out(even though that takes more time) would have made a whole lot more sense than the slant.

I still believe that particular play call was stupid.

 

[kmoose]

I agree throwing on second down is an OK way to go. But when you are on the one, there is no such thing as a simple slant. The field is so condensed that it's entirely too crowded in the middle of the field to run that play. Also, you have arguably the best scrambling QB in the game. An outside the hash pass of some sort or a roll out(even though that takes more time) would have made a whole lot more sense than the slant.

I still believe that particular play call was stupid.

That's why it's a chess game. Carroll obviously thought that NE would anticipate that any pass would include a roll out, and the defenders in the middle would start to drift outside, therefore leaving the middle open. Add a pick(rub) to that, and you have a high probability of success. But, like in chess, the opponent doesn't always react the way you hope. That doesn't stop you from gambling, though.

 

[North Buffalo Irish]

Can anyone remember a single GREAT throw Brady made? His best pass of the night was probably the touchdown to Gronkowski, which was all about Gronk's size, strength and athleticism.

Edelman's route-running and YAC were the keys to New England's offense (and Gronk being the biggest mismatch in the history of the NFL). Every QB in the league makes that go-ahead TD pass, because Edelman ran a PERFECT route.

Not one time in SIX Super Bowls did Brady go out and dominate. All of the wins (and losses) were close, and all but the Eagles game went down to the final plays.

That's why it's a chess game. Carroll obviously thought that NE would anticipate that any pass would include a roll out, and the defenders in the middle would start to drift outside, therefore leaving the middle open. Add a pick(rub) to that, and you have a high probability of success. But, like in chess, the opponent doesn't always react the way you hope. That doesn't stop you from gambling, though.

Pete Carroll doesn't call the offensive plays lol. In your previous post, you said New England had their jumbo defense in and were going to clog the middle, so running was a bad idea. Now you say they were anticipating a pass to the outside, so forcing the ball down the middle was a good idea. Which is it?

 

[IrishLax]

I think you are forgetting how good some of those SF defenses were. In 1988 they were 3rd in YPG (and 8th in pts/game), and in 1989 they were 4th in yards per game and 3rd in pts per game. In 1984 they were 10th in YPG but 1st in Points/per game. SF defenses during the Super Bowl years definitely don't get enough love for how good they were.

Oh no I'm aware. That's why I'm saying it was a bit of a wash. When Brady had "terrible" WRs to work with, he had some truly elite defenses. The defenses Montana had before the arrival of Rice, as you said, were also elite.

In general, IMO both guys had strong supporting casts throughout their careers, including coaching. And I think it's hard to say who had definitively "better" help around them relative to the other in terms of trying to win Super Bowls.

 

[Me2SouthBend]

I disagree. We are talking about who the best QB is, not the best team. Montana performed flawlessly in all of his Super Bowl victories. Brady has not. Hell, he threw two picks last night and they still gave him the MVP (Mostly because no one else took the game over).

Brady didn't take over the game last night or put the team on his back. They won despite him throwing two costly picks. Montana turned it on in all of his Super Bowls. You are comparing team accomplishments with personal accomplishments. The Patriots put Tom Brady in more Super Bowl appearances and that's what allowed him to match some of Joe's numbers. Give Joe two more appearances and he would have probably won two more rings and another MVP.

Brady didn't take the game over? He was 15-17 for 130 yds and 2 TD's in the 4th quarter against the defense that has been better than anyone for 3 years. He was 9-9 on the last drive ending it w a TD pass. Brady was a surgeon late in that game. This argument is silly in it's totality. If David Tyree doesn't make a miracle catch and Welker catches a very catchable ball or Manningham doesn't make a circus catch in tight coverage, Brady has 6 rings. On the flip side, if the Seaclowns hand the ball to Lynch, Brady doesn't win last nights game. There are so many variables that go into both sides of the argument it's almost not worth debating (yet here I am). I'm not taking anything away from Joe Cool, but to be dismissive of Brady's career accomplishments in the Super Bowl is intellectually dishonest. Brady put his team in a position to win last night. He put his team in a position to win in '07 (I think that was the year entering 18-0). That time the D couldn't hold up, last night w the help of Pete the Cheat, they did.

Both are all time greats, that's my take. 1 other thing, as others have noted. Walsh and Belichick are all time great coaches which was and continues to be huge reasons these guys have won as much as they have.

 

[GoldenDome]

Joe Montana couldn't win without Ronnie Lott...

 

[NDRock]

Can anyone remember a single GREAT throw Brady made? His best pass of the night was probably the touchdown to Gronkowski, which was all about Gronk's size, strength and athleticism.

Edelman's route-running and YAC were the keys to New England's offense (and Gronk being the biggest mismatch in the history of the NFL). Every QB in the league makes that go-ahead TD pass, because Edelman ran a PERFECT route.

Not one time in SIX Super Bowls did Brady go out and dominate. All of the wins (and losses) were close, and all but the Eagles game went down to the final plays.

Honestly, you're grasping for straws. I understand that when discussions come up about GOAT every little thing gets picked apart. Nobody can difinitively say who the greatest QB of all time is but Brady belongs in the conversation.

I also thought he played very well last night and hit his WRs perfectly giving them a chance to run after the catch (something Montana also did exceptionally well). Seattle has an all time great D and to be able go on two 4th Q TD drives against them was pretty damn impressive.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Of course Brady's the better quarterback...Joe's 58 years old.

 

[ACamp1900]

How many Super Bowls did Montana win that absolutely deserve asterisks??

 

[ulukinatme]

Do we really have to be objective about this? I mean, I know Joe hasn't always been in the University's corner over the years, but we're comparing him to scUM's own Tom Brady.

 

[kmoose]

Pete Carroll doesn't call the offensive plays lol. In your previous post, you said New England had their jumbo defense in and were going to clog the middle, so running was a bad idea. Now you say they were anticipating a pass to the outside, so forcing the ball down the middle was a good idea. Which is it?

Apparently you missed the post game press conference, or one of the million of other showings of the clip, where Carroll said it was HIS decision to run that play.

Stop trying to put words in mouth. I never said it was a GOOD idea. In fact, in my original post about the play, I specifically said THIS:

Carroll's decision to throw the ball on the goal line was not as crazy as people have made it out to be. I'm not saying it was a good decision, but it wasn't "stupid".

But hey............ don't let facts or the truth stop you.

 

[pkt77242]

Apparently you missed the post game press conference, or one of the million of other showings of the clip, where Carroll said it was HIS decision to run that play.

Stop trying to put words in mouth. I never said it was a GOOD idea. In fact, in my original post about the play, I specifically said THIS:



But hey............ don't let facts or the truth stop you.

Actually I am pretty sure that Carroll took responsibility for it (he is the head coach after all) but Bevell called it. Peter King talked about it in his article this morning. Taking responsibility for it and calling the play are two different things.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Having sex with four super models and making out with two others, or just having sex with four super models.

Not as much fun as you might imagine. I mean yeah, it was fun, but there's a lot of work involved keeping all of them "in the game" and then there's all the drama too. Just sayin'.

 

[kmoose]

Actually I am pretty sure that Carroll took responsibility for it (he is the head coach after all) but Bevell called it. Peter King talked about it in his article this morning. Taking responsibility for it and calling the play are two different things.

Mea Culpa.

And it's totally irrelevant to the fact that all of these people screaming about it being the worst call of the century are wrong.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I can't read through all of this right now, but I'd say a couple things:

1. I love Joe Montana. I am not old enough to have seen him play at ND, but he was my favorite NFL player when I was a kid and obviously that he is a ND guy only makes him more of a favorite. (Actually, that is the way I look at it now, but really Montana is a big reason I became a ND fan as a kid.)

2. I think if you're going to name a Greatest Ever, for QBs it has to be some combination statistical accomplishment and team success because of the nature of the position.

3. Tom Brady combines those two areas better than anyone that has ever played. You could make a case for Brady being a top-3 QB of all time using either of those measures, and the same cannot be said of anyone else that has ever played.

4. Brady will pass Dan Marino and has a realistic shot to finish ahead of Drew Brees in passing yardage, which would put him third all-time. He will also pass Marino and has a realistic shot to finish ahead of Brees in passing touchdowns, which would also put him third all-time. He is currently fifth in career QBR, but it is very reasonable that he could be second by the end of next year if he has a good season - he is percentage points behind Steve Young, and within two points of Manning and Romo. The guys on all these lists with Brady (Manning, Marino, Favre and Brees) have combined for three championships - less than Brady's four.

5. Only Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana have won as many Super Bowls as Brady. Montana is 13th in yardage, 11th in touchdowns and 10th in QBR. Bradshaw is 53rd in yardage, 31st in TDs and 137th in QBR. (Obviously they all played in different eras, but those differences are stark.) Brady has won more conference championships than any QB in history, has the best career winning percentage among QBs with enough starts to qualify, and he will soon pass Brett Favre and likely Peyton Manning and retire with the most wins of any QB to ever play.

6. Someone in this thread said that Tom Brady is a game manager. Tom Brady has played exactly one full season with an all-pro caliber WR (Moss in 2007), and he threw for 5000 yards and 50 TDs! The 50 TDs were the most ever at the time, and his 117 QBR is still the fourth best season in history. He is also a two-time MVP. Also, see no. 4, above.

7. Someone in this thread wondered whether Tom Brady won last night's game or Pete Carroll lost it. I can't pretend like Carroll's play call at the end didn't help the Patriots, but Brady went 13/15 for 130 yards and two TDs in the fourth quarter to pull off the biggest fourth quarter comeback in Super Bowl history against one of the elite defenses in the history of football (which had given up one second half TD since October). So criticizing Carroll is fair, but it isn't like the game was just handed to the Patriots. Brady played arguably the greatest fourth quarter in the history of the sport, considering the stakes and the circumstance.

8. I kind of brought this up before in no. 5, above, but it is crazy to me that people would say "Joe Montana is better because he never lost a Super Bowl and Brady lost two." That is arguing that losing in the divisional round or not even making the playoffs at all is better than winning your conference. That makes no sense.

9. Fuck Michigan. Just so we're clear.

 

[pkt77242]

Mea Culpa.

And it's totally irrelevant to the fact that all of these people screaming about it being the worst call of the century are wrong.

It is also possible that Carroll told Bevell to throw the ball and then Bevell chose that play which would really put it on both of them.

 

[Me2SouthBend]

I can't read through all of this right now, but I'd say a couple things:

1. I love Joe Montana. I am not old enough to have seen him play at ND, but he was my favorite NFL player when I was a kid and obviously that he is a ND guy only makes him more of a favorite. (Actually, that is the way I look at it now, but really Montana is a big reason I became a ND fan as a kid.)

2. I think if you're going to name a Greatest Ever, for QBs it has to be some combination statistical accomplishment and team success because of the nature of the position.

3. Tom Brady combines those two areas better than anyone that has ever played. You could make a case for Brady being a top-3 QB of all time using either of those measures, and the same cannot be said of anyone else that has ever played.

4. Brady will pass Dan Marino and has a realistic shot to finish ahead of Drew Brees in passing yardage, which would put him third all-time. He will also pass Marino and has a realistic shot to finish ahead of Brees in passing touchdowns, which would also put him third all-time. He is currently fifth in career QBR, but it is very reasonable that he could be second by the end of next year if he has a good season - he is percentage points behind Steve Young, and within two points of Manning and Romo. The guys on all these lists with Brady (Manning, Marino, Favre and Brees) have combined for three championships - less than Brady's four.

5. Only Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana have won as many Super Bowls as Brady. Montana is 13th in yardage, 11th in touchdowns and 10th in QBR. Bradshaw is 53rd in yardage, 31st in TDs and 137th in QBR. (Obviously they all played in different eras, but those differences are stark.) Brady has won more conference championships than any QB in history, has the best career winning percentage among QBs with enough starts to qualify, and he will soon pass Brett Favre and likely Peyton Manning and retire with the most wins of any QB to ever play.

6. Someone in this thread said that Tom Brady is a game manager. Tom Brady has played exactly one full season with an all-pro caliber WR (Moss in 2007), and he threw for 5000 yards and 50 TDs! The 50 TDs were the most ever at the time, and his 117 QBR is still the fourth best season in history. He is also a two-time MVP. Also, see no. 4, above.

7. Someone in this thread wondered whether Tom Brady won last night's game or Pete Carroll lost it. I can't pretend like Carroll's play call at the end didn't help the Patriots, but Brady went 13/15 for 130 yards and two TDs in the fourth quarter to pull off the biggest fourth quarter comeback in Super Bowl history against one of the elite defenses in the history of football (which had given up one second half TD since October). So criticizing Carroll is fair, but it isn't like the game was just handed to the Patriots. Brady played arguably the greatest fourth quarter in the history of the sport, considering the stakes and the circumstance.

8. I kind of brought this up before in no. 5, above, but it is crazy to me that people would say "Joe Montana is better because he never lost a Super Bowl and Brady lost two." That is arguing that losing in the divisional round or not even making the playoffs at all is better than winning your conference. That makes no sense.

9. Fuck Michigan. Just so we're clear.

If you're going to end w a F*ck Michigan, shouldn't you have 2 number threes and call it a top 8 list?