(08-21-2021, 06:25 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Are you trying to win an argument? Or get to the truth here? Because the truth is this:

The original statement was that defenses in Montana's era were more physical. You then tried to focus on early 2000s defenses, as if Brady hasn't played most of his career after his knee injury.

Even playing by your made up rule, saying 2000-2008 defenses were just as physical as 1980s defenses simply isn't true when you actually acknowledge the facts I presented you.

The 3 rules you reference were huge rule changes bud. Especially the change to intentional grounding. That one alone is massive. The other 2 were big changes as well. In total, there were 5 big changes to protect QBs BEFORE Brady's knee injury.

Have some grace and bow out. Or at least have the decency to admit I have a big point here. Sheesh.

Early 2000s looks like actual football compared to NOW, of course...but they were already placing rules to start protecting QBs at that point, and it wasn't as brutal as the 70s or 80s.

I don’t want to speak for him, but I see what you’re trying to do. You assert the assumption that the defenses back then were tougher to play against and force the other person to prove you wrong. But you are avoiding the real question and that is who has the results to back up being called the GOAT.

I don’t remember Montana bringing his team back from 21 to win a super bowl against a better team. I don’t remember Montana playing through a ligament tear in his knee to not only finish out the regular season but win a super bowl. I don’t remember Montana winning 7 Super Bowls.

Even if defenses weren’t as good in the 2000s vs 80s, all other qbs have the same advantages now as then and name a qb with more than a couple rings besides Brady in this era. Rodgers is continually thought of as a better an because of his play and stats. But winning is what matters. Montana won a lot of rings, but not close to 7. I don’t see how there can be any debate

(08-21-2021, 06:25 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Are you trying to win an argument? Or get to the truth here? Because the truth is this:

The original statement was that defenses in Montana's era were more physical. You then tried to focus on early 2000s defenses, as if Brady hasn't played most of his career after his knee injury.

Even playing by your made up rule, saying 2000-2008 defenses were just as physical as 1980s defenses simply isn't true when you actually acknowledge the facts I presented you.

The 3 rules you reference were huge rule changes bud. Especially the change to intentional grounding. That one alone is massive. The other 2 were big changes as well. In total, there were 5 big changes to protect QBs BEFORE Brady's knee injury.

Have some grace and bow out. Or at least have the decency to admit I have a big point here. Sheesh.

Early 2000s looks like actual football compared to NOW, of course...but they were already placing rules to start protecting QBs at that point, and it wasn't as brutal as the 70s or 80s.

You’re getting your panties in a bunch for me popping in and calling out your hyperbole when you said there is “no comparison” to 80s defenses and 2000s defenses.

One, there is no made up rule. We’re talking about 2000s defenses. In case that is too hard for your mind to handle, we’re talking about the decade that is referred to as the 2000’s. That would be 2000-2009. If you don’t like the definition of a decade, I don’t know who you talk to about that.

With you saying that there was “no comparison”, I came in and said I disagreed and said that football in the early 2000s was incredibly physical. Nowhere did I say that it was MORE physical, nor did I say that it was AS physical. I said that I disagreed that there was NO COMPARISON.

I basically said that there wasn’t that big of a difference until many of those rule changes started going in later in the 2000s. Is this that controversial of a statement for you? Because this went from a football discussion to you being a sensitive ***** prick in the span of two posts.

If you want to talk about “having grace” or “having decency” I would highly suggest you have the mental aptitude to read and fully comprehend a post first.

(08-21-2021, 06:35 PM)Bengalstripes9 Wrote: I don’t want to speak for him, but I see what you’re trying to do. You assert the assumption that the defenses back then were tougher to play against and force the other person to prove you wrong. But you are avoiding the real question and that is who has the results to back up being called the GOAT.

I don’t remember Montana bringing his team back from 21 to win a super bowl against a better team. I don’t remember Montana playing through a ligament tear in his knee to not only finish out the regular season but win a super bowl. I don’t remember Montana winning 7 Super Bowls.

Even if defenses weren’t as good in the 2000s vs 80s, all other qbs have the same advantages now as then and name a qb with more than a couple rings besides Brady in this era. Rodgers is continually thought of as a better an because of his play and stats. But winning is what matters. Montana won a lot of rings, but not close to 7. I don’t see how there can be any debate

That's a whole other discussion, but I'd say Brady's resume makes him the best ever. That said, Montana didn't get a chance to play in this era...which is obviously much softer and easier for QBs.

(08-21-2021, 06:36 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: You’re getting your panties in a bunch for me popping in and calling out your hyperbole when you said there is “no comparison” to 80s defenses and 2000s defenses.

One, there is no made up rule. We’re talking about 2000s defenses. In case that is too hard for your mind to handle, we’re talking about the decade that is referred to as the 2000’s. That would be 2000-2009. If you don’t like the definition of a decade, I don’t know who you talk to about that.

With you saying that there was “no comparison”, I came in and said I disagreed and said that football in the early 2000s was incredibly physical. Nowhere did I say that it was MORE physical, nor did I say that it was AS physical. I said that I disagreed that there was NO COMPARISON.

I basically said that there wasn’t that big of a difference until many of those rule changes started going in later in the 2000s. Is this that controversial of a statement for you? Because this went from a football discussion to you being a sensitive ***** prick in the span of two posts.

If you want to talk about “having grace” or “having decency” I would highly suggest you have the mental aptitude to read and fully comprehend a post first.

Oh, I'm crystal on what you wrote. The link I provided just backs my assertion that there's "no comparison" and also disproves your notion that the only real rule changes favoring QB safety happened after Brady's knee injury.

Tis a shame you can't at least acknowledge that.

Btw...I didn't call you any names. That's against the coc. I'll let it slide this time, but just a little FYI.

(08-21-2021, 06:48 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: That's a whole other discussion, but I'd say Brady's resume makes him the best ever. That said, Montana didn't get a chance to play in this era...which is obviously much softer and easier for QBs.


Oh, I'm crystal on what you wrote. The link I provided just backs my assertion that there's "no comparison" and also disproves your notion that the only real rule changes favoring QB safety happened after Brady's knee injury.

Tis a shame you can't at least acknowledge that.

Btw...I didn't call you any names. That's against the coc. I'll let it slide this time, but just a little FYI.

Oh, how generous of you to let it slide. You might want to take a look at that COC again in order to find this little tidbit…

“ Messages of any kind that are intended to insult, belittle, harass, embarrass or threaten another member.”

I’m sure you’ll find some excuse to explain how saying “Have some grace and bow out. Or at least have the decency to admit I have a big point here. Sheesh.” wasn’t meant as an insult, belittle, harass or embarrass me. This conversation was going well until your previous post.

(08-21-2021, 06:56 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Oh, how generous of you to let it slide. You might want to take a look at that COC again in order to find this little tidbit…

“ Messages of any kind that are intended to insult, belittle, harass, embarrass or threaten another member.”

I’m sure you’ll find some excuse to explain how saying “Have some grace and bow out. Or at least have the decency to admit I have a big point here. Sheesh.” wasn’t meant as an insult, belittle, harass or embarrass me. This conversation was going well until your previous post.

If what I said in that post qualified as "harassment", we'd just have to shut the boards down.

I'm the sensitive one here?

Look, that's about as far as this convo needs to go. Any other snotty replies will be deleted. I honestly should've deleted your post that actually DID violate the coc.

(08-21-2021, 07:13 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: If what I said in that post qualified as "harassment", we'd just have to shut the boards down.

I'm the sensitive one here?

Look, that's about as far as this convo needs to go. Any other snotty replies will be deleted. I honestly should've deleted your post that actually DID violate the coc.

You’re only reading harassment when there are three other pertinent verbs there. It’s not my fault the COC has wide spreading rules. I agree with you, if those rules were followed to a T, then the boards would be shut down.

Either way, I will apologize for calling you a prick. You’re correct, you didn’t call me any names. The rest of it is just fire being returned.

Enjoy your weekend!

(08-21-2021, 07:24 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: You’re only reading harassment when there are three other pertinent verbs there. It’s not my fault the COC has wide spreading rules. I agree with you, if those rules were followed to a T, then the boards would be shut down.

Either way, I will apologize for calling you a prick. You’re correct, you didn’t call me any names. The rest of it is just fire being returned.

Enjoy your weekend!

Some rules are vague and could be interpreted differently by different people, but I'd say the spirit of that particular rule is meant to weed out "bullying" and trolling. I was guilty of neither there. Just being a little red.

Same to you. No hard feelings on my end.

Every era has peers. If you want to try and find the GOAT, you have to look at who was so much better than their peers and then compare them that way. 

Who was more better (i love that term) than their peers.