What’s more impressive for a team or player over a 10 year period?
Going 4-0 in 4 Finals or 4-4 over 8 Finals? Over 10 years.
Which would you rather see as a fan?
Philosophical question here. I find those that take the 4-0 record to be dead wrong. Would love to see that stance defended.
Particularly since Montana played in an era of NFC dominance, when the conference won 15 of 16 Super Bowls.
I think every person would rather be 4-0 than 3-5? How many appearances negates the extra championship?
The fallacy of this whole argument is it is such a hindsight question. In the moment, you want to get to as many championship games as possible because it maximizes your chances of winning. But if you already know that double the amount of championship appearances doesn't equal more wins whats the point?
Quote:
I hate the Francesa argument that Montana is better than TB12 because Montana went undefeated in the Super Bowl (4-0) while TB12 has gone 6-3.
Particularly since Montana played in an era of NFC dominance, when the conference won 15 of 16 Super Bowls.
I think that strengthens the case for how tough it was to actually get out of the NFC. If the Conference didn't have so many great teams over those years, there's no telling how many SB's Montana and the Niners would've gotten to.
Well, the two teams won the same number of championships, but one of them also played for the championship four additional times. Isn't losing in the SB four times better than losing earlier in the playoff, or not even making the playoffs? I suppose some people don't think losing in the championship is the 2nd best outcome a season could have. I think such people are kind of, well, dumb.
Quote:
The goal is to win championships, not just get there. What if the team that went 4-4 lost every time to the team that went 4-0? Who's better? I'll take the 'perfect' record.
Well, the two teams won the same number of championships, but one of them also played for the championship four additional times. Isn't losing in the SB four times better than losing earlier in the playoff, or not even making the playoffs? I suppose some people don't think losing in the championship is the 2nd best outcome a season could have. I think such people are kind of, well, dumb.
If the goal every year is to win a championship, who cares about the second best outcome. Again, if the math was slightly different, 4-0 vs 3-5 in championship, what are you taking? The 4 championships because they outweigh losses by a far margin. So the question becomes how many championships losses equate one championship win? Is 1-9 better than 2-0? If the answer is zero, then championship losses have no value.
4 losses, hell 10 losses doesn't devalue your 4 championships.
I am proud of our 4-1......but would be annoyed if we lose the next 3 Super Bowls.
I am also the guy who cursed the Giants while sitting in the stands with my son during last Super Bowl, Giants losing, and NE driving for a clitching score.....and prayed for a win....even if I need to suffer for the next 10 years.
Wes Walker drops pass, Manningham makes that great catch right in front of us....and my son and I will always have that experience......but the past years have been tough
4-0 > 4-1 for me. Don't think I'd have wanted to watch THREE more Super Bowl losses. I get it, those saying it's "great" to be able to get there. But for me, nah.
It shouldn't be 4-0 vs. 4-4 - It should be 4-0 vs. 2-4 or something less that the number won.
The goal is to win championships. So 4-4 is better than 4-0. But 4-0 is better than any number less than that on the front end.
If you asked somebody in 2006 if they'd take 2 SB's and shitty play over the next decade - they'd take it. especially if the flip was consistently good play with no titles.
And an easy catch dropped by Welker won us ours.
When it comes to comparing teams, the years they don't make the Super Bowl are years in which they lost earlier with an inferior resume up until that point.
A better question would be if a QB plays for only four seasons (or a team only existed for four seasons) and goes 4-0 vs a QB that plays for only 5 seasons and goes 4-1 in the Super Bowl.
In this case it's comparing a season where the end result is making it all the way to the finals and loses with a non-existent season.
When it comes to comparing teams, the years they don't make the Super Bowl are years in which they lost earlier with an inferior resume up until that point.
A better question would be if a QB plays for only four seasons (or a team only existed for four seasons) and goes 4-0 vs a QB that plays for only 5 seasons and goes 4-1 in the Super Bowl.
In this case it's comparing a season where the end result is making it all the way to the finals and loses with a non-existent season.
The whole problem with this argument is hindsight vs in the moment. You want to make the playoffs every year because it gives you the greatest chance of making the playoffs. In the moment, 41-0 is great, knowing what followed 41-0 slightly tarnishes the memory.
So if the choice was Team A makes the playoffs 4 times in 10 years and Team B makes the playoffs 8 times in ten years, you Take Team B because it maximizes the chances of winning.
If you know the results, that regardless if you Took Team A or B it produced the same amount of championships, the argument becomes what is more attractive, the winning percentage, or the number of appearances?
In a binary league, you either win or you don't. You don't get accolades for coming in 'second'. Teams are ranked by number of championships. How would you break a tie? Winning percentage or number of appearances?
And Montana beat the Bengals twice
Quote:
is then saying that the memory of the Giants beating the Vikings 41-0 in the NFC Championship is a bad thing and that in hindsight, they wish we would have lost 41-0.
When it comes to comparing teams, the years they don't make the Super Bowl are years in which they lost earlier with an inferior resume up until that point.
A better question would be if a QB plays for only four seasons (or a team only existed for four seasons) and goes 4-0 vs a QB that plays for only 5 seasons and goes 4-1 in the Super Bowl.
In this case it's comparing a season where the end result is making it all the way to the finals and loses with a non-existent season.
The whole problem with this argument is hindsight vs in the moment. You want to make the playoffs every year because it gives you the greatest chance of making the playoffs. In the moment, 41-0 is great, knowing what followed 41-0 slightly tarnishes the memory.
So if the choice was Team A makes the playoffs 4 times in 10 years and Team B makes the playoffs 8 times in ten years, you Take Team B because it maximizes the chances of winning.
If you know the results, that regardless if you Took Team A or B it produced the same amount of championships, the argument becomes what is more attractive, the winning percentage, or the number of appearances?
In a binary league, you either win or you don't. You don't get accolades for coming in 'second'. Teams are ranked by number of championships. How would you break a tie? Winning percentage or number of appearances?
"How would you break a tie? Winning percentage or number of appearances?"
Pretty obviously, it should be appearances imo. A loss in the NFC Championship game is worse than a loss in the Super Bowl from a success standpoint.
That's silliness. It's not at all what's being said.
For me that 41-0 win was terrific. But it doesn't have NEARLY the feeling that the Frozen Tundra win in Green Bay or the San Fran rain game had. It's still a nice memory, but it doesn't connect with anything good and, for me, is diminished to a degree. (Again, to a degree. Not erased or reversed.)
My Dad and I never wanted divisional winner Giants shirts or NFC champion Giants shirts (even when they went on to win their Super Bowls). That's not the goal to won the NFC title. The goal is to win the whole thing.
For me, 4-0 >>> 4-4.
Even if we lost to the Pats, those two games would've been bigtime moments in Eli's career and classic victories for us.
I agree with the T-shirt thing, I'd never get anything other than a Super Bowl/Champion t-shirt.
But all playoff wins still mean something imo.
Even if we lost to the Pats, those two games would've been bigtime moments in Eli's career and classic victories for us.
I agree with the T-shirt thing, I'd never get anything other than a Super Bowl/Champion t-shirt.
But all playoff wins still mean something imo.
No. Not completely meaningless. But less impactful for me as a fan. Still great games. Just less of an emotional response, looking back.
If Eli loses one or both of those Super Bowls, I think conversations change. The HoF one, certainly is different. They're still good wins for Eli, but he would be the guy who "couldn't win the big one." I'm glad that's not the case.
I agree with you that playoff wins mean something. Some playoff losses also mean something. I look at the loss to the Bears that windy day in Chicago in a similar category as the Minnesota 41-0 win. Sure, different results, but both with their own bag of plus-minuses. I realize that's a nuance thing there that some might not understand or agree with. Maybe some will.
Missed FG at the buzzer. Lose by 1. To a team with a backup QB as the starter!
Trailing 17-0 at halftime, and 24-0 before getting a FG, losing 37-24.
Taking a 7-0 lead, but still trailing 28-10 at halftime, then scoring a long TD to get it to 2 scores heading to the 4th only to see your team implode down the stretch, losing 52-17.
Then thinking this HAS to be our year, and OH MY GOD! We're going to pull it off, leading 13-6 at halftime, only to see our team fumble away the lead, then be completely shut down after intermission, losing 30-13, to the same team we lost to last year.
Them's some shitty-ass parties, man.
No thanks for me. lol
Quote:
is then saying that the memory of the Giants beating the Vikings 41-0 in the NFC Championship is a bad thing and that in hindsight, they wish we would have lost 41-0.
That's silliness. It's not at all what's being said.
For me that 41-0 win was terrific. But it doesn't have NEARLY the feeling that the Frozen Tundra win in Green Bay or the San Fran rain game had. It's still a nice memory, but it doesn't connect with anything good and, for me, is diminished to a degree. (Again, to a degree. Not erased or reversed.)
My Dad and I never wanted divisional winner Giants shirts or NFC champion Giants shirts (even when they went on to win their Super Bowls). That's not the goal to won the NFC title. The goal is to win the whole thing.
For me, 4-0 >>> 4-4.
Of course that is what's being said. Rather, it's your point about the feeling of the win over the Vikings not comparing to the win in Green Bay or SF that is irrelevant to the argument. No one is saying anything to the contrary.
The Giants are 4-1 in the Super Bowl because they lost to the Ravens in the Super Bowl. They don't make that Super Bowl, they are 4-0 in Super Bowls. They made that Super Bowl because of an awesome performance in the NFC Championship game where they won 41-0.
People on here are saying that 4-0 is better than 4-1. If that's the case, the only thing that can be inferred is that in hindsight-- since the Giants lost to the Ravens-- beating the Vikings 41-0 was a worse outcome than losing 41-0 to the Vikings. A loss would have prevented the Super Bowl loss from happening.
Then you can look at the next level if they have the same number of wins. 4-4 means that got to the last game twice as often as the 4-0. Does that mean they are the better team? Maybe, but it also indicates they lost those games...maybe they have trouble winning the big game (pressure issues?) Maybe they are the better team?
They are still better than 3-1 or 0-4.
I would add this the Montana over Brady because he's 4-0 is so dumb it's not worth mentioning. Teams win or lose games not individuals.
I would add this the Montana over Brady because he's 4-0 is so dumb it's not worth mentioning. Teams win or lose games not individuals.
I understand the human element of "it hurts".
But by that same logic, wouldn't not making the playoffs at all "hurt less" than losing in the NFC Championship Game?