I don't know which teams, I know he was favore in the title game at home in 1992 as everyone expected SF to win. 1996 was another year, 1997. At least get to those SBs.
Only 2 times has Peyton led his O's to more than 20 pts in a playoff loss: 2007 28-24 loss where he threw 2 RZ INTs costing his team at least 6 pts in a 4 pt loss. 2012 vs. Bal where he got 2 STs TDs and turned it over 3 times directly leading to 17 pts in a 3 pt loss in double OT
Brady has 3 SB wins and 5 SBs, Peyton doesn't. when you have done it like that you can afford clunkers which Brady has had many of late. Brady has been Peyton like since 2005.
Shouldn't Montana just be considered the best of All-Time? Great stats, but undefeated in Super Bowl. Montana: (4-0) Brady: (3-2) Manning: (1-2) Favre: (1-1) Elway: (2-3) Marino: (0-1) Sanchez: (0-0) That logic seems fair.
this makes absolutely zero sense. He tried to do more and failed more? Duh- BECAUSE HIS TEAM NEEDED HIM TO DO MORE. Im sure Young wouldn't have had an issue feeding Emmit behind Allen and Williams.
he had a big time RB to hand off to, not as good as Emmitt but a pro bowl caliber back that is a borderline HOFer. he had the greatest WR to ever play the game which Aikman didn't have so that balances out the differences at RB. He also had a big time pass catching TE just like Aikman had. Aikman had a better OL but SF's was really good. Overall the units were close, maybe Dallas was slightly more talented but shouldn't that be made up in the difference at QB if Steve was better?
and history has proven that everyone was wrong in 1992, as Dallas was the better team that year, the next year, and would have been the year after that by your argument if JJ had not left. Young lost to a Dallas team in 1992 that by the totality of your own argument was better, and just because people thought beforehand that they weren't doesn't mean he should have beaten them, it means everyone else was wrong that he should have.
Uh, no. But the dominant running game with a dominant oline is inherently less dangerous than the passing game. Getting Smith the ball was easier for Dallas than it was for the Niners to get Rice the ball.
he doesn't have to be as good as rice individually, but the difference of Rice's impact on the game over Irvin's wasn't nearly as great as the difference of the impact of Emmit Smith over any of the 49ers backs.
The Jimmy Johnson point doesn't fit...either Dallas was better or Young "choked" If Dallas was the better team than Young can't be considered a choker....If the Cowboys win if Johnson was there in 94 then the argument of Young choking doesn't work. Was the difference in teams the QB's or the coach? Because Aikman was there in 1994...now suddenly it's because the coach wasn't there?
sure but if SF gets better QB play then history is changed. Ricky Watters averaged over 6 YPC in the 1992 title game, Watters only ran for 3.1 YPC in the SB- how did they win?
I disagree, Watters is a borderline HOF back and as greatest Emmitt was he wasn't the greatest of all time. I think dallas had the slight edge in talent, that should have been made up for by the supposedly much better QB. I think if you switch the QBs SF wins more than Dallas. Young was badly outplayed routinely by Aikman and Favre in postseason games in the 90s.
