Warning come to you through messaging system. It's a private message.
In my case I had two guys sitting at the end of my driveway in a blacked out Lincoln Navigator when I went out to get the paper one morning. They pulled out as I approached the mailbox and drove by real slow. I can't be sure but I think my Dak jammies saved me from getting roughed up.
Only one way he is getting a super bowl ring.
Could have been. Although usually the hangarounds trying to get in the club aren't coming back without a trophy to prove themselves. I'd probably be missing a typing finger or two if it was Coogs.
Depends on perception. I've watched several QBs now get extremely favorable calls. Mahomes is the latest. BUFF got FUBARed last season, and badly. JAX got FUBARed so Brady would be in the super bowl. It really takes very little evaluation to see what's happening, the NFL wants certain QBs in, and they want close games. It's not an accident that blowouts are much less frequent than they used to be, and comebacks now rule the day.
Wins & losses are a team statistic.
Right. I mean, if you even want to compare QBs, you really should stick with the same era using individual statistics. Some inject one with the other to make a "point."
And strong divisions come and go. A division might have 3 playoff teams, and then 4-5 yrs later they might be lucky to have 1.
Beating teams also contributes to their potentially losing record.
Who is talking wins and losses specifically? What we are pointing out, and you guys are purposefully trying to overlook is simple. You are more likely to build up -- pad -- personal statistics when you win games versus when you lose games. So when you play in a division where you win 80% of the time, you statistics are going to look better than if you play in a division where you only win 50% of the time. Your personal statistics are going to greatly benefit from having 4 games to pad your stats on against two bottom feeders teams, Washington and the gnats, versus if your team were located in the NFC West or NFC North which has teams you tend to struggle against. That is why Brady being above .500 outside his division shows that he earned his stats against the league at whole, versus just against a bad division where he got to pad them in.
You did.
Never said that.. But what I will say is that I saw both of them take 8-9 sack beatings behind poor o-line play and still keep fighting and most of the time winning. Of course they both lost some and got their arses whupped. But I just know that theirs was a more physically demanding era which in turn required a level of mental toughness I can't say I ever saw Brady display. Brady was quick to dirt the ball or throw it into the stands rather than take a hit for much of his career. As you know, that sort of thing was actually illegal for all of Roger's and most of Montana's career. Again not speaking in any absolutes.. I just trust those guys more than I would Brady when faced with a fierce pass rush. Maybe when everything is clean and he can stand back there and make a sammich Brady was better. I can't say.. but I do know that those two handled pressure better. I mean didn't Too Tall and Co sack Montana like 7-8 times and hit him a bunch more in that 1981 NFC Championship game and he still managed to win it anyway? I will go look it up but my recollection is that our defense was all over him that day and he just kept on firing. And I don't think he had much of a running game to speak of. Much as I hated the Niners I respected the hell out him and them after that game.
No I wasn't. I was saying that his personal statistics benefited from playing against a weak division, with two bottom feeder teams in it, where he won 80% of his games. When playing outside this division he only wins 50% of his games. So obviously, his personal stats wouldn't have been as high if he played in the NFC West or NFC North, against teams the Cowboys don't do as well against and his personal statistics against those teams aren't as good as. Or are you saying that personally statistics don't benefit from wins and aren't negatively impacted by loses? Does not a quarterback, usually, have a better day against a bad team versus a good team? I mean you guys can play dumb all you want, but the rest of us understand the concept of causation.
I guess you missed this TB Dak comparison, this is your straw man usual post, and I'd take 0-4 Kelly, 0-1 JB, 0-1 DM or CCG JA and CCG LJ so wouldn't any sane person. what's Dak's record in CCGs, you need to ditch this sad argument because you know it's just sad.
