The Giants won 2 SBs during that era.
Barring the Minnesota debacle in '87, it took a herculean effort to take out Joe..
Let me preface this by saying Dan Marino is my favorite football player of all time, I usually think Joe Montana is the greatest, and I also like Tom Brady a lot.
Objectively, I think people fail to acknowledge context when judging QBs against each other, and I think it's pretty much a fool's game to compare different era and different contexts in a team game - especially football, the most fundamentally "team" sport of all major American sports, where the parts work in service to the whole and only like 5 positions get glory because the public is too stupid to process the complexity of the sport.
That being said, almost all of the arguments for an against the top QBs seem flawed to me. You can't prop up the Giants teams that beat Montana and say only legendary squads beat Joe, then hold it against Brady that he lost two Super Bowls to these beast ass Giant defenses and a QB with the ability to make outrageous, near-impossible throws.
I really, really fukk with Tom Brady. At the same time, the popular narrative for Brady and Beli is an old one that hasn't been amended to be in step with reality. Beli is a genius, Brady is the greatest, and that's the end of story. Except Beli and Brady keep losing home games and big games on neutral turf when they are favored to win by a touchdown or more. And Brady has been outplayed by Flacco twice, Eli twice, even Mark Sanchez. Coughlin, Harbaugh, and Rex have out-planned and out-adjusted Beli on several occasions. And to the mainstream media, it's as if none of this has happened.
Beli is a piece of shyt, period. And Tom Brady - if the media wasn't so invested in his narrative for their own reasons, for their need to advance grander storylines - has been an underperforming choker. And as much as I can counterpoint anti-Pats arguments, you can't just sweep under a rug that these motherfukkers have lost a lot of games people thought they would win since Spygate.
Sometimes I think Brady's greatness is trumpeted while his shytty performances are ignored for the same reasons people pretended Common made a classic album and isn't a corny doofus - every generation wants to believe they have icons as good as if not better than previous ones.
As a Brady fan, I was disgusted watching him pull up short in the face of Ngata and throwing that dying quail into the end zone. Unacceptable, dog. It's not all about Welker's dropped passes. Sometimes a ho is a fukking ho and you got to call it.
I guess I never have understood why it's not enough for Brady to be one of the greats as opposed to "the greatest." And if we're going to talk about Beli as the greatest coach, then what does it mean that he has lost home games against worse teams in the playoffs, and super bowls with beast squads? Or do we just buy into legends and tailor their losses to fit the narratives of their greatness, so it becomes like the big banks in our warped brand of capitalism, and every victory proves their brilliance while very loss can be rationalized as someone else's fault?
I'm rambling, and I definitely just took another helping of my bourbon, but in general I feel like the Pats have joined Duke and the Yankees as franchises with rationalizing, retarded fanbases who are pimped for storylines by media beyond reason.
Or, succinctly and simply: how many times and how embarrassingly do Brady and Beli have to fail before we start saying "hey, maybe this greatest talk is a bit more nuanced than we've been thinking?"
all HAIL JOE DA GAWD
