Post by DC-Fan on Jan 28, 2018 7:11:40 GMT
5-3 isn't bad if those 1, 2, or all 3 of those losses were to teams that were favorites. But when you go 5-3 in the Super Bowl and all 3 of those losses were to underdogs, that's awful and that definitely removes Belicheat and Shady Brady from any conversation of GOAT.
Joe Montana certainly wouldn't lose a Super Bowl to an underdog, let alone lose 3 Super Bowls to underdogs. Michael Jordan would never lose an NBA Finals to an underdog, let alone lose 3 NBA Finals to underdogs. Losing a 3rd Super Bowl to an underdog would completely destroy Belicheat's and Shady Brady's legacies.
To this day, one of the dumbest arguments ever is that somehow going 4-0 in Super Bowls is better than going 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-whatever.
To this day, THE DUMBEST ARGUMENT EVER is that somehow going 5-3 in Super Bowls when you the favorite in 7 games is better than going 8-0 or 7-1.
When you're the favorite in 7 of 8 Super Bowls and you don't go 7-1 or 8-0, then YOU'RE A FAILURE. And that's exactly what Belicheat and Shady Brady will be if they lose a 3rd Super Bowl to an underdog.
And NO, going 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-whatever is definitely not any better than going 4-0 in the Super Bowl. Saying that " going 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-whatever is better than going 4-0 in the Super Bowl" is as dumb as saying "Loading the bases with nobody out and not scoring is better than a 1-2-3 inning for the offense".
The end result of loading the bases with nobody out and not scoring is no runs. So loading the bases with nobody out and not scoring isn't any better than a 1-2-3 inning. Likewise, the end result of going 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-whatever in the Super Bowl is just 4 wins. So 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-whatever in the Super Bowl is definitely not any better than going 4-0 in the Super Bowl.