UMass-NFL news

Ringing the Bell on a new era of UM Football.
Post Reply
User avatar
InnervisionsUMASS
Hall of Fame
Posts: 14724
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Milford, MA
Contact:

Post by InnervisionsUMASS » Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 pm

^

No one is putting loses in the plus column, but you are completely disregarding getting there 5 times (or in 87's argument, 6 times, with 4 of them wins).

And also, no one said anything about "winning it less and losing it more". That was never, ever, discussed.
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades

User avatar
SJGMoney
Junior
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 2:01 pm
Location: Danvers, MA

Post by SJGMoney » Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:44 pm

InnervisionsUMASS wrote:Brady has played with 1 Hall of Famer on offense, and that was only for 2+ years (Randy Moss). Bruce Armstrong doesn't count.
Yeah no doubt, and I don't count Moss because they lost, so you are right there. The HOF argument comes in when we compare apples (4 wins no losses) to apples. But Brady's had a similar cast to Montana, a lot of well coached very good (not great) players in the right spot so the sum of the whole is better than the pieces. Of course we have to wait 5-10 years to see who from the Pats gets in but I would say Ty Law should be a definite as is Vinatieri. Rodney Harrison should be but he doesn't get enough props. Richard Seymour was probably on his way until he disappeared into the black hole. Be interesting to see if any Pats o-lineman are looked back on favorably when the time comes.
UMass '87

User avatar
InnervisionsUMASS
Hall of Fame
Posts: 14724
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Milford, MA
Contact:

Post by InnervisionsUMASS » Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:59 pm

^

I was only looking at the offensive side of the ball in terms of HOF. With the D, there will def be some that make it, Wilfork being #1 on that list.


Your argument still doesn't stack up, though. You're blinded by that 4th ring. I love that 4th ring and I want Brady to have it and more badly, but not having it isn't going to stop him from being the greatest when all is said and done.
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades

User avatar
Chris20
Hall of Fame
Posts: 9396
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:15 am
Location: Springfield

Post by Chris20 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:10 pm

I think the fourth ring is a very strong point in JM's favor. Brady's ydg and TD stats are partially offset by the era he's playing in. His INT #'s are a strong point in TB's favor, though....with the amount of times he throws, that # is staggering.


If, however, Brady does win a 4th ring, I do think getting to 2 others is a positive. At the same time, 4-0 is pretty cool too.

User avatar
InnervisionsUMASS
Hall of Fame
Posts: 14724
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Milford, MA
Contact:

Post by InnervisionsUMASS » Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:16 pm

4 rings is a very strong point, I don't take anything away from that. I just happen to look at everything, and not just the 4 rings.


Someone posted Brady's winning % as well... mind boggling.
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades

User avatar
SJGMoney
Junior
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 2:01 pm
Location: Danvers, MA

Post by SJGMoney » Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:17 pm

InnervisionsUMASS wrote:^

I was only looking at the offensive side of the ball in terms of HOF. With the D, there will def be some that make it, Wilfork being #1 on that list.


Your argument still doesn't stack up, though. You're blinded by that 4th ring. I love that 4th ring and I want Brady to have it and more badly, but not having it isn't going to stop him from being the greatest when all is said and done.
I think Wilfork will make it too, although if he gets traded in a couple of years to Oakland all bets are off. He wasn't there for the first 2 wins, right so he only has one ring. Ty Warren actually has more (2). Willie McGinest will be an interesting name for the HOF committee to discuss. Fred Coleman will not.
UMass '87

User avatar
SJGMoney
Junior
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 2:01 pm
Location: Danvers, MA

Post by SJGMoney » Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:21 pm

Chris20 wrote:I think the fourth ring is a very strong point in JM's favor. Brady's ydg and TD stats are partially offset by the era he's playing in. His INT #'s are a strong point in TB's favor, though....with the amount of times he throws, that # is staggering.


If, however, Brady does win a 4th ring, I do think getting to 2 others is a positive. At the same time, 4-0 is pretty cool too.
4-0 with 11 TDs and no INTs. Think about it, not even an end of 1st half Hail Mary garbage pick. Not a tipped ball, batted ball, deflected ball off a WRs shoulder pads that bounces to the other team, nothing.
UMass '87

User avatar
InnervisionsUMASS
Hall of Fame
Posts: 14724
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Milford, MA
Contact:

Post by InnervisionsUMASS » Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:24 pm

^^

Ted Washington! haha


^

Yet he threw a ton more in the regular season than Brady.
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades

User avatar
Chris20
Hall of Fame
Posts: 9396
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:15 am
Location: Springfield

Post by Chris20 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:39 pm

My honest opinion is that it's close right now, and a 4th for Brady puts him over the top by a nose.

UMass87
Hall of Fame
Posts: 8244
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:01 am

Post by UMass87 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:23 pm

The fourth ring for Brady is ENTIRELY hypothetical and thus so is getting to six Super Bowls. That said, you really have proved yourself an idiot SGJMoney. I'm sorry but there is now way to sugarcoat it. You are stupid. You were given plenty of opportunity not to prove it but you chose to trumpet it. Let me make it simple for you:

- every year the goal of every team is to win the Super Bowl
- To get to the Super Bowl you must win the Conference Championship
- if two players play the same number of years and win the same number of Super Bowls but one player plays in a greater number than the player playing the greater number has succeeded beyond the player playing fewer.

I'm sorry but you are an idiot. You use the number of Super Bowl wins as the reason Montana is better than Brady and yet you are too stupid to see that if those are equal than the player getting to more Super Bowls MUST be better.

User avatar
Chris20
Hall of Fame
Posts: 9396
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:15 am
Location: Springfield

Post by Chris20 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:31 pm

No....that completely oversimplifies it, as clearly evidenced by infinite examples.

You think Jim Plunkett is better than Peyton Manning.....and better yet, Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson are better than Dan Marino.

The #s of wins and appearances are useful comparisons, but can't be looked at as the only criteria. Who'd they play with? Against? Montana had a great Bears team and a couple great Giants teams to deal with....or he would have been in more Super Bowls.

There is ample argument on both sides....the only idiotic thing is completely dismissing the opposing opinion, and as usual, resorting to your favorite past-time, 87. Which is obviously Internet Name-Calling.

UMass87
Hall of Fame
Posts: 8244
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:01 am

Post by UMass87 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:39 pm

Chris20 - so now we are going to argue the relative strength of the NFL? Now you are just being silly. The Super Bowl is merely the last game of the most successful season possible. Losing the Super Bowl is the sencond most successful thing a team can do. Crediting a player with being the best, as SGJMoney is doing, based on Super Bowl wins NECESSARILY means crediting the player with getting to the penultimate state.

Identifying someone who is demonstrably, by what they write, stupid is not, in my book, name calling. You may also be immune to logic which is, frankly, a sign of stupidity.

User avatar
Chris20
Hall of Fame
Posts: 9396
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:15 am
Location: Springfield

Post by Chris20 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:47 pm

I think he's pointing to 4-0 and the stats involved as a measure of a guys greatness. He took absolute advantage of every chance he had to finish the deal and win it all. I think there is value there......and that it doesn't necessarily de-value the accomplishment of GETTING to some others, as Brady has done. Wy is is silly to wonder why Montana didn't get to a couple others? Why is it silly to point to a couple GREAT teams that stood in his way, probably better than anyone Brady has had to get through in his time? Quarterbacks don't play by themselves, this isn't golf. Who they played with/against is absolutely relevant when weighing how many SB's a guy got to and won.

Both were great, obviously. I think the idiotic thing is to say that "one is better than the other, and you're an idiot if you believe otherwise".

User avatar
InnervisionsUMASS
Hall of Fame
Posts: 14724
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Milford, MA
Contact:

Post by InnervisionsUMASS » Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:49 pm

Like I said, Tom is slowly closing the door on this discussion and when all is said and done, he will be considered the greatest.
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades

User avatar
Chris20
Hall of Fame
Posts: 9396
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:15 am
Location: Springfield

Post by Chris20 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:53 pm

Only with a 4th ring will any door be closing.....the compilable statistics Brady has can be easily dismissed by citing the passing era we are in right now. Most of the general public will not be swayed to close any door on the argument while Montana has the extra ring.

Post Reply