Did I HEAR correctly Jerry Rice?

The problem with Brady for me is that the moment he became a great stud QB who carried his team, his team stopped winning super bowls. The early run was based on Brady staying out of the way, having a dominant defense and a strong kicker / special teams.

Math is really becoming a national problem.....Since when is 3 superbowls better than 4? which one did Brady NOT need his kicker ?

It's hilarious homerism that people think being 4-1 (if it happens) in SBs is better than 4-0. It means he GOT to the SB one more time AND won as many. It means it's one more success than Joe had of winning a Conference championship game when he had the chance. And certainly if he wins more than 4 and/or has 4 wins but maybe 2 or 3 losses, it is a better record of success than Joe's in terms of getting to and/or winning SBs.


Not getting to the Superbowl is worse than getting there and loosing. It means you lost earlier in the playoffs. Not that you didn't lose.

I love Joe and will always consider him the best personally. But getting to more SBs is the winning tie breaker if you have won the same number.

Originally posted by TexasNiner:

It's hilarious homerism that people think being 4-1 (if it happens) in SBs is better than 4-0. It means he GOT to the SB one more time AND won as many. It means it's one more success than Joe had of winning a Conference championship game when he had the chance. And certainly if he wins more than 4 and/or has 4 wins but maybe 2 or 3 losses, it is a better record of success than Joe's in terms of getting to and/or winning SBs.


Not getting to the Superbowl is worse than getting there and loosing. It means you lost earlier in the playoffs. Not that you didn't lose.

I love Joe and will always consider him the best personally. But getting to more SBs is the winning tie breaker if you have won the same number.

Taking rule changes and ref behavior into account... Nope. Not the same game.

Originally posted by OKC49erFan:

Originally posted by TexasNiner:
It's hilarious homerism that people think being 4-1 (if it happens) in SBs is better than 4-0. It means he GOT to the SB one more time AND won as many. It means it's one more success than Joe had of winning a Conference championship game when he had the chance. And certainly if he wins more than 4 and/or has 4 wins but maybe 2 or 3 losses, it is a better record of success than Joe's in terms of getting to and/or winning SBs.


Not getting to the Superbowl is worse than getting there and loosing. It means you lost earlier in the playoffs. Not that you didn't lose.

I love Joe and will always consider him the best personally. But getting to more SBs is the winning tie breaker if you have won the same number.

Taking rule changes and ref behavior into account... Nope. Not the same game.

If Montana and Rice played together in this era of football with all the rules in favor of the O i have no doubt there would be a few more SB wins for us
.

Originally posted by KB94605NINERS:

Originally posted by OKC49erFan:

Originally posted by TexasNiner:
It's hilarious homerism that people think being 4-1 (if it happens) in SBs is better than 4-0. It means he GOT to the SB one more time AND won as many. It means it's one more success than Joe had of winning a Conference championship game when he had the chance. And certainly if he wins more than 4 and/or has 4 wins but maybe 2 or 3 losses, it is a better record of success than Joe's in terms of getting to and/or winning SBs.


Not getting to the Superbowl is worse than getting there and loosing. It means you lost earlier in the playoffs. Not that you didn't lose.

I love Joe and will always consider him the best personally. But getting to more SBs is the winning tie breaker if you have won the same number.

Taking rule changes and ref behavior into account... Nope. Not the same game.

If Montana and Rice played together in this era of football with all the rules in favor of the O i have no doubt there would be a few more SB wins for us
.

also a few more records for them ( i'm looking at YOU randy moss!!!!)

even if he said that I don't believe him

Originally posted by TexasNiner:
It's hilarious homerism that people think being 4-1 (if it happens) in SBs is better than 4-0. It means he GOT to the SB one more time AND won as many. It means it's one more success than Joe had of winning a Conference championship game when he had the chance. And certainly if he wins more than 4 and/or has 4 wins but maybe 2 or 3 losses, it is a better record of success than Joe's in terms of getting to and/or winning SBs.


Not getting to the Superbowl is worse than getting there and loosing. It means you lost earlier in the playoffs. Not that you didn't lose.

I love Joe and will always consider him the best personally. But getting to more SBs is the winning tie breaker if you have won the same number.

Agreed. Montana losing in the 1st round of the playoffs is not better than Tom Brady losing in the Super Bowl.

That being said in 23 games Joe Montana has a 95.6 qb rating. In 18 games Tom Brady has a 85.5 playoff rating. Tom's going to have to win 5 Super Bowls before he can talk.

I recall a Brady press conference this season where a reporter asked him if he considers himself as good or better than Montana.

Paraphrasing, he said not even close. The league was very different then. MUCH more running game, less restrictions on the defense, ect.

I know he was a 49er fan growing up, so one might think he is being humble. Truth is, he couldn't be more correct.

Originally posted by krizay:
He said Montana is the best but if Brady wins this superbowl he'll be right there with Montana. But think Brady will win one more which puts him ahead of Montana.

1 more playoff win and Brady ties Montana for most ever.

If Brady gets to 5 he certainly can make the claim that he's the best ever.

Hating on Rice because he thinks Brady could win 5 Super Bowls is silly. He wasn't slapping Joe's face at all with those comments.

Montana >>>>> Vinatieri (sp?)

Originally posted by sacniner:
I've heard him say that he wishes he played in this NE system. If a guy like Wes Welker has ridiculous numbers imagine what Jerry could have put up.

so rice didnt put up ridiculous numbers? brady is better than montana? what the hell is going on? is the world ending already?

Originally posted by kodiak9er:
so rice didnt put up ridiculous numbers? brady is better than montana? what the hell is going on? is the world ending already?

We never put up 5,000 yards passing. I'm sure Rice is thinking if I put up 1,300 yards with Montana throwing for 3,800 yards I'd put 2,000 yards in today's pass happy league.

yeah he said IF lol


not there yet


and if the son of a b***h does it, who knows

Am I the only one who is getting tired of the post-football Jerry Rice??