Montana is now the #2 GOAT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

I know no one is arguing that. But I'm saying you can't compare the eras. Does Brady stay healthy like he has in the NFL of the 1980's? We'll never know but it's less likely. Montana would have been more likely to stay healthy in today's era as well. Again- we'll never know but it's certainly more likely that he would stay healthy.

What is undisputable is Montana never lost a Super Bowl in multiple tries and he never threw an interception in one either. He also beat Marino and Elway two of the best head to head in two of those and in a third he led one of the greatest comebacks in Super Bowl history.

---

Like HSV posted, had Montana been good enough to lead his teams to more super bowls, he would have had a better chance to lose a couple and throw a pick 6 or two.
I can't believe this argument. It's like playing cards with my brothers kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

Young is much better than you give him credit for. Among qb ratings all time, he's 5th with the 4 above him being present day guys. Young's qbr is better than brees, Big Ben, Peyton, rivers, and yes, Montana (#13 all time)

---

Ok ... he only won 1 SB with loaded 49er teams. I'll take Big Ben, Payton and Brees over him all day every day. The 49er were loaded the whole time Young was there for the most part.

I said above if Montana and Brady play each other it's a toss up to me or maybe Brady will have the slight edge in the end. Any team Joe plays on would wipe a team Young played on, as a much less talented KC team did in 94 I believe was the year. Joe brings up the guys around him. The guys around Steve brought him up (Jerry, Brent, Taylor, Lott). A lot of veteran's there to help him to bring his level of play up.

ETA: I know you just trolling me too and it's working haha. Don't like Young. Whiney crybaby.

Never count out Touchdown Tom. Brady is the GOAT, end of discussion. I have always loved Montana, but you cannot deny that Tom surpasses everything Joe has ever done. Go ahead, try to throw a statistic out there that proves me wrong. You will fail.

I am by no means a Patriot fan, by the way. I was cheering for the birds tonight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

No- I'm penalizing him for losing more Super Bowls and not performing as well in Super Bowls. 4 INT's and a QB rating of 95.3 vs. No losses, 0 INT's and a rating of 127.8. I'm also saying that this era is more QB friendly for Brady in terms of passing and player safety which is what in turn leads to those extra chances.

Meyer and Saban are coaching in the same era and Montana and Brady played in different eras- that's the difference.

---

You're right it was a different era... the NFC never lost Super Bowls back then. The NFC won 13 straight till Denver won back-to-back. Much more parity among divisions today

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgday166

Ok ... he only won 1 SB with loaded 49er teams. I'll take Big Ben, Payton and Brees over him all day every day. The 49er were loaded the whole time Young was there for the most part.

I said above if Montana and Brady play each other it's a toss up to me or maybe Brady will have the slight edge in the end. Any team Joe plays on would wipe a team Young played on, as a much less talented KC team did in 94 I believe was the year. Joe brings up the guys around him. The guys around Steve brought him up (Jerry, Brent, Taylor, Lott). A lot of veteran's there to help him to bring his level of play up.

ETA: I know you just trolling me too and it's working haha. Don't like Young. Whiney crybaby.

---

I'm brees and elway, but young was very dang good

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DownwardDawg

Like HSV posted, had Montana been good enough to lead his teams to more super bowls, he would have had a better chance to lose a couple and throw a pick 6 or two.
I can't believe this argument. It's like playing cards with my brothers kids.

---

Yeah- I doubt they would have lost to the Buffalo Bills in 1990 or the San Diego Chargers in 1994. Yes, the chance of him losing or throwing an INT is "better"- but as it stands based on the results that are official and known Montana didn't lose one and didn't throw an INT in one.

What we do know is Montana went to four and won all four in a row. Brady went 3-1 in his first four and throw an INT. And at no point in Brady's career has he won 4 in a row.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Random Poster

He's still #2

This choke job by Atlanta is legendary

---

Your first statement is debatable, but your second one is not. Falcons pissed it away. Run the freaking ball and you don't have to worry about a sack or holding call. Milk the clock some, kick the field goal, and your the one celebrating instead of the pats. Dumb dumb dumb by the coaching staff. And for the record, I was saying this at the time it was happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

You're right it was a different era... the NFC never lost Super Bowls back then. The NFC won 13 straight till Denver won back-to-back. Much more parity among divisions today

---

It was also a lot more difficult to get through the NFC to even get to the Super Bowl. The Bears, Giants, and Redskins were all very good teams and to get to the Super Bowl you usually had to go through at least one of those teams to do it. The Cowboys were very good in the early 80's too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basedog

Dude,Motana was great, know one Is disagreeing with that fact. But Brady is the best ever, winning 5 Super Bowls and staying healthy for the most part is remarkable. He ain't done either, I ain't a Pats fan either.

---

Your right. Brady is great. But there is a reason he stays healthy. They should be "wearing a dress" in this league now. Can't sneeze on Brady without drawing a flag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

I'm brees and elway, but young was very dang good

---

One thing to add about Montana ... NC at Notre Dame .. and there is a wall somewhere up there that lists his 6 great come-from-behind victories. Joe did it where ever he played. If his receivers that are running wide-open into the end zone catch the ball and he doesn't get knocked out with a concussion, KC probably would have made the SB his last year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

No- I'm penalizing him for losing more Super Bowls and not performing as well in Super Bowls. 4 INT's and a QB rating of 95.3 vs. No losses, 0 INT's and a rating of 127.8. I'm also saying that this era is more QB friendly for Brady in terms of passing and player safety which is what in turn leads to those extra chances.

Meyer and Saban are coaching in the same era and Montana and Brady played in different eras- that's the difference.

---

You can talk all about different eras all you want to, but the fact is Brady has put himself in this rare air by sustaining a high level of performance for much longer than other QB's in his same era. Compare the game Brady put on tonight with the turd that we saw from Peyton Manning last year who is around his same age. Compare his career arc to Drew Brees who is another guy around the same age who hasn't been quite able to match Brady's consistency in the twilight years.

And at some point, you have to be able to compare eras. If Brady has another 4000 yard season and gets another ring next year at 40, are you still going to say you can't compare eras when one guy has twice as many appearances and two more rings? I'd argue that you can compare them already, but even if you don't agree with that then you still have to acknowledge that at some point the gap becomes too large to ignore.

Any chance Brady hangs em up? Has the most rings and just won one

Brady will keep playing till he can't walk. He's enjoying it too much.

No game is ever over with Belichik and Brady on that field!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

Any chance Brady hangs em up? Has the most rings and just won one

---

Brady saying he's playing til he's 45.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

Any chance Brady hangs em up? Has the most rings and just won one

---

Somehow I doubt it. You only get one chance to craft a legacy. If the old arm still has some zip to it I see no reason why he'd not try to push himself to the brink to win 1 or 2 more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HSVDawg

You can talk all about different eras all you want to, but the fact is Brady has put himself in this rare air by sustaining a high level of performance for much longer than other QB's in his same era. Compare the game Brady put on tonight with the turd that we saw from Peyton Manning last year who is around his same age. Compare his career arc to Drew Brees who is another guy around the same age who hasn't been quite able to match Brady's consistency in the twilight years.

And at some point, you have to be able to compare eras. If Brady has another 4000 yard season and gets another ring next year at 40, are you still going to say you can't compare eras when one guy has twice as many appearances and two more rings? I'd argue that you can compare them already, but even if you don't agree with that then you still have to acknowledge that at some point the gap becomes too large to ignore.

---

I think Montana is better than Peyton and Brees as well. I think Brady is better than Peyton and Brees too. But it's much easier and more relevant to compare Brady to Brees and Peyton because they all played in the same era as each other. Same with Montana and Young, Elway, Marino, Aikman etc.

You can compare eras right now- but if you do you HAVE TO take into account the differences between the two eras. Was Hank Aaron a better player than Babe Ruth? No. Even though he has more home runs. The only way to compare at this point in time is to look at the two individuals players and make an educated guess- because we're never going to have the definitive numbers unfortunately- on how each player would have done if they played in the same era. You can't say- "oh, well Brady went to more and therefore he is better" when the game is much safer now than it was and is more QB friendly than it was when Montana played. I think if you put Brady on the 80's 49ers and Montana on the Patriots of the past 15 years I think Montana would have outperformed him in both comparisons. That's really the most relevant way to look at it.

Of course all of this is going to be moot in about 15 years when Dak takes over and becomes the real greatest of all time by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

I think Montana is better than Peyton and Brees as well. I think Brady is better than Peyton and Brees too. But it's much easier and more relevant to compare Brady to Brees and Peyton because they all played in the same era as each other. Same with Montana and Young, Elway, Marino, Aikman etc.

You can compare eras right now- but if you do you HAVE TO take into account the differences between the two eras. Was Hank Aaron a better player than Babe Ruth? No. Even though he has more home runs. The only way to compare at this point in time is to look at the two individuals players and make an educated guess- because we're never going to have the definitive numbers unfortunately- on how each player would have done if they played in the same era. You can't say- "oh, well Brady went to more and therefore he is better" when the game is much safer now than it was and is more QB friendly than it was when Montana played. I think if you put Brady on the 80's 49ers and Montana on the Patriots of the past 15 years I think Montana would have outperformed him in both comparisons. That's really the most relevant way to look at it.

---

Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

I disagree. Both Joe and Tom have a knack for making players around them better than they would be otherwise. This whole thread is littered with "so and so from Joe's 49'ers SB teams isn't a HOF'er, so he did less with more."

You think Edelman is? Amendola? Blount? Further back, you think Welker is? You want to say he had Randy Moss for 3 years? Yes, they went undefeated one of those years and lost the SB. One of two out of the SEVEN that Brady has lost. And yes, Moss was an incredible talent, but he is not HOF level and has exactly zero SB rings.

Bottom line, both Joe and Tom raised the level of play for the players they threw the ball to. Tom has played in and won more Conference Championships than Joe. Tom has played in way more and won more Super Bowls than Joe.

End of story. Tom Brady is the GOAT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabaka

Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

I disagree. Both Joe and Tom have a knack for making players around them better than they would be otherwise. This whole thread is littered with "so and so from Joe's 49'ers SB teams isn't a HOF'er, so he did less with more."

You think Edelman is? Amendola? Blount? Further back, you think Welker is? You want to say he had Randy Moss for 3 years? Yes, they went undefeated one of those years and lost the SB. One of two out of the SEVEN that Brady has lost. And yes, Moss was an incredible talent, but he is not HOF level and has exactly zero SB rings.

Bottom line, both Joe and Tom raised the level of play for the players they threw the ball to. Tom has played in and won more Conference Championships than Joe. Tom has played in way more and won more Super Bowls than Joe.

End of story. Tom Brady is the GOAT.

---

Excellent post! And I loved Montana but Brady just went to a different level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commercecomet24

Excellent post! And I loved Montana but Brady just went to a different level.

---

You and I both. Montana was my hero as a young junior high QB. Brady is another cut above, and I dislike the Patriots. You can't deny it, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabaka

Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

I disagree. Both Joe and Tom have a knack for making players around them better than they would be otherwise. This whole thread is littered with "so and so from Joe's 49'ers SB teams isn't a HOF'er, so he did less with more."

You think Edelman is? Amendola? Blount? Further back, you think Welker is? You want to say he had Randy Moss for 3 years? Yes, they went undefeated one of those years and lost the SB. One of two out of the SEVEN that Brady has lost. And yes, Moss was an incredible talent, but he is not HOF level and has exactly zero SB rings.

Bottom line, both Joe and Tom raised the level of play for the players they threw the ball to. Tom has played in and won more Conference Championships than Joe. Tom has played in way more and won more Super Bowls than Joe.

End of story. Tom Brady is the GOAT.

---

Woah- you don't think Randy Moss will be in the HOF? You pretty much just invalidated yourself. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...of-fame-class/

Really the only question with Moss is whether he will be in on the first ballot or not- and basically more like "when" than "if". WR is a position where it's hard to get inducted on the first try for some reason. I actually wouldn't be shocked if Welker makes it to the HOF to be honest with you- 5 Pro Bowls and the first to have three seasons of 110 receptions and five of 100 receptions. He was productive with the Broncos as well so I don't think you can say he was just a product of Tom Brady. Now Welker won't be a first ballot guy but I think once people look at his career I think the experts and football historians will probably agree with me after he has been on the ballot for 10 years or so. I think Rob Gronkowski might have a chance to be a HOF potentially depending on how he does the next five years or so but he has four pro bowls so he is off to a very good start towards that. And as unpopular as it may be to say it- but I think Aaron Hernandez is maybe the best H-Back I've ever seen and I think he would have been a HOF player had he not thrown his life away.

And as far as your last sentence- well, that's just like your opinion, man. I think they both bring out the best in the players that they have surrounding them. I think a lot of people (not you) think that Montana was a byproduct of Jerry Rice and that is wrong- Rice wasn't on their first two Super Bowl teams and actually has more TD receptions from Young. I think that the reason that Brady has played longer- and thus had more chances to go to a Super Bowl- is because of the era that he plays in. It's the rules of today, the training and etc. Those things can't be discounted.

Brady > Montana and Belichick > Walsh. Those Niners vs the pats would've been a hell of a SB though.

Todd, when all of your arguments are shoulda/woulda/coulda, you're probably on the wrong side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

Woah- you don't think Randy Moss will be in the HOF? You pretty much just invalidated yourself. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...of-fame-class/

Really the only question with Moss is whether he will be in on the first ballot or not- and basically more like "when" than "if". WR is a position where it's hard to get inducted on the first try for some reason. I actually wouldn't be shocked if Welker makes it to the HOF to be honest with you- 5 Pro Bowls and the first to have three seasons of 110 receptions and five of 100 receptions. He was productive with the Broncos as well so I don't think you can say he was just a product of Tom Brady. Now Welker won't be a first ballot guy but I think once people look at his career I think the experts and football historians will probably agree with me after he has been on the ballot for 10 years or so. I think Rob Gronkowski might have a chance to be a HOF potentially depending on how he does the next five years or so but he has four pro bowls so he is off to a very good start towards that. And as unpopular as it may be to say it- but I think Aaron Hernandez is maybe the best H-Back I've ever seen and I think he would have been a HOF player had he not thrown his life away.

And as far as your last sentence- well, that's just like your opinion, man. I think they both bring out the best in the players that they have surrounding them. I think a lot of people (not you) think that Montana was a byproduct of Jerry Rice and that is wrong- Rice wasn't on their first two Super Bowl teams and actually has more TD receptions from Young. I think that the reason that Brady has played longer- and thus had more chances to go to a Super Bowl- is because of the era that he plays in. It's the rules of today, the training and etc. Those things can't be discounted.

---

No. Moss should not be in the HOF. Incredible talent? Yes, he is. Will he get in for nostalgia's sake? Probably, although that will be a travesty. Which is exactly what you are suggesting for Welker getting in after 10 years or so, which is ridiculous. Neither belong in the halls of the greats of the game.

Hernandez very well could have been a great resource for Tom and ended up in the discussion, but he ****ed his life up and guess what? He was replaced by Gronkowski, who was a NE draft pick.

Gronk will be a HOF tight end if he stays healthy. He wasn't healthy for this SB. AND TOM BRADY WON HIS FIFTH SUPER BOWL WITHOUT HIS "FUTURE" HOF TE. Oh wait, am I going back to the original point of this thread?

Also, what do you think Tom is a by-product of? He succeeds with different personnel year in and year out. He has made it to 7 Super Bowls in 15 years as a starter, with continually different personnel surrounding him. He makes the players surrounding him better than Joe ever could. There is no question in my mind that he is the GOAT, and I am not a fan of his or NE's at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

Woah-

---

And, by the way, it is spelled "whoa".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabaka

Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

I disagree. Both Joe and Tom have a knack for making players around them better than they would be otherwise. This whole thread is littered with "so and so from Joe's 49'ers SB teams isn't a HOF'er, so he did less with more."

You think Edelman is? Amendola? Blount? Further back, you think Welker is? You want to say he had Randy Moss for 3 years? Yes, they went undefeated one of those years and lost the SB. One of two out of the SEVEN that Brady has lost. And yes, Moss was an incredible talent, but he is not HOF level and has exactly zero SB rings.

Bottom line, both Joe and Tom raised the level of play for the players they threw the ball to. Tom has played in and won more Conference Championships than Joe. Tom has played in way more and won more Super Bowls than Joe.

End of story. Tom Brady is the GOAT.

---

Just to let you know ... I never argued Montana's last 2 SB teams' offensive skill players are much better than anyone Brady has ever had to play with. But his first 2, probably on a par with Brady ... especially his 1st SB.

I'll also add that Joe never faced the same level of defenses in the SB that Brady has faced with the Giants, Seahawks, and the Falcons. Joe usually faced greater defenses in the NFC as a whole tho to come out of it into the SB.

There were only 7 players left on the 49ers last SB team from their 1st. Both NE & San Fran are different from the 70's Steelers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DudyDawg

Brady > Montana and Belichick > Walsh. Those Niners vs the pats would've been a hell of a SB though.

---

5-0 > 5-2. Walsh > Bellicheck. Walsh changed the game much moreso than Bellicheck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DudyDawg

Todd, when all of your arguments are shoulda/woulda/coulda, you're probably on the wrong side.

---

So playing in the NFL in the 80's was the same as today. Got it. I guess you don't think Jim Brown was the best running back of all time either since he has fewer rings than Emmitt Smith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabaka

No. Moss should not be in the HOF. Incredible talent? Yes, he is. Will he get in for nostalgia's sake? Probably, although that will be a travesty. Which is exactly what you are suggesting for Welker getting in after 10 years or so, which is ridiculous. Neither belong in the halls of the greats of the game.

Hernandez very well could have been a great resource for Tom and ended up in the discussion, but he ****ed his life up and guess what? He was replaced by Gronkowski, who was a NE draft pick.

Gronk will be a HOF tight end if he stays healthy. He wasn't healthy for this SB. AND TOM BRADY WON HIS FIFTH SUPER BOWL WITHOUT HIS "FUTURE" HOF TE. Oh wait, am I going back to the original point of this thread?

Also, what do you think Tom is a by-product of? He succeeds with different personnel year in and year out. He has made it to 7 Super Bowls in 15 years as a starter, with continually different personnel surrounding him. He makes the players surrounding him better than Joe ever could. There is no question in my mind that he is the GOAT, and I am not a fan of his or NE's at all.

---

Moss belongs in the HOF. I'm not saying Tom Brady isn't great. I am saying Joe Montana doesn't lose two with the Patriots talent. In fact he probably would have gone Super Bowl 24 on the Giants with that talent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bdawg

Your right. Brady is great. But there is a reason he stays healthy. They should be "wearing a dress" in this league now. Can't sneeze on Brady without drawing a flag

---

Brady took a whupping last night but stood in the pocket like a man, 460 yards passing. Btw, Brady is a health nut, not only for football. Never been a fan of New England for any sport, but Brady is the greatest.

Oh, his wife ain't shabby either, LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

So playing in the NFL in the 80's was the same as today. Got it. I guess you don't think Jim Brown was the best running back of all time either since he has fewer rings than Emmitt Smith.

---

Running back isn't the most important position. Brady 25-9 in the playoffs, Montana 16-7, Brady w more rings and SB MVP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

5-0 > 5-2. Walsh > Bellicheck. Walsh changed the game much moreso than Bellicheck.

---

Where'd you get 5-0?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabaka

No. Moss should not be in the HOF. Incredible talent? Yes, he is. Will he get in for nostalgia's sake? Probably, although that will be a travesty. Which is exactly what you are suggesting for Welker getting in after 10 years or so, which is ridiculous. Neither belong in the halls of the greats of the game.

Hernandez very well could have been a great resource for Tom and ended up in the discussion, but he ****ed his life up and guess what? He was replaced by Gronkowski, who was a NE draft pick.

Gronk will be a HOF tight end if he stays healthy. He wasn't healthy for this SB. AND TOM BRADY WON HIS FIFTH SUPER BOWL WITHOUT HIS "FUTURE" HOF TE. Oh wait, am I going back to the original point of this thread?

Also, what do you think Tom is a by-product of? He succeeds with different personnel year in and year out. He has made it to 7 Super Bowls in 15 years as a starter, with continually different personnel surrounding him. He makes the players surrounding him better than Joe ever could. There is no question in my mind that he is the GOAT, and I am not a fan of his or NE's at all.

---

Moss is clearly a HOFer and will easily get in. It's not even a discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DudyDawg

Where'd you get 5-0?

---

Walsh's Super Bowl record was 5-0 when you add two imaginary wins to the 3 he actually won.

I wonder if 3-0 is somehow better than 5-2?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

5-0 > 5-2. Walsh > Bellicheck. Walsh changed the game much moreso than Bellicheck.

---

Aside from the fact that it's actually 4-0 for Montana and 3-0 for Walsh, this argument is so dumb. What do you think happened in those years Montana/Walsh didn't win or lose the SB? You think they didn't play those years? They still lost, they just lost even earlier and couldn't even make the SB those years.

Making the playoffs > not making the playoffs
Making the SB > not making the SB
Winning the SB > not winning the SB

Those are all clear statements of fact. Thus, making and losing the SB is definitely still better than not making the SB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HSVDawg

Walsh's Super Bowl record was 5-0 when you add two imaginary wins to the 3 he actually won.

---

Haha. Thank you, I was positive it was 3 but was starting to doubt myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

Aside from the fact that it's actually 4-0 for Montana and 3-0 for Walsh, this argument is so dumb. What do you think happened in those years Montana/Walsh didn't win or lose the SB? You think they didn't play those years? They still lost, they just lost even earlier and couldn't even make the SB those years.

Making the playoffs > not making the playoffs
Making the SB > not making the SB
Winning the SB > not winning the SB

Those are all clear statements of fact. Thus, making and losing the SB is definitely still better than not making the SB.

---

And to that end, Brady also has 4 more playoff apperarances when you discount the 86 and 92 seasons that Montana missed the majority of due to injury. Even if you include those, Brady has two more.

So, total Playoff apperances - Brady > Montana
Super Bowl appearances - Brady > Montana
Super Bowl wins - Brady > Montana

Also, a lot has been made about it being a "different game" back then where you could be more physical with QB's. Well, Montana suffered two major injuries in his career. A back injury in 1986, and an elbow injury in 1991. In case anyone wasn't aware, it is still legal to hit QB's in the back / torso and in the elbow (even though I think his elbow injury was a noncontact practice injury). So, theoretically his body (and by extension - Brady's body as well) would be at the same risk today for the injuries he actually sustained that allegedly prevented him from extending his career. So that argument holds no water either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HSVDawg

And to that end, Brady also has 4 more playoff apperarances when you discount the 86 and 92 seasons that Montana missed the majority of due to injury. Even if you include those, Brady has two more.

So, total Playoff apperances - Brady > Montana
Super Bowl appearances - Brady > Montana
Super Bowl wins - Brady > Montana

Also, a lot has been made about it being a "different game" back then where you could be more physical with QB's. Well, Montana suffered two major injuries in his career. A back injury in 1986, and an elbow injury in 1991. In case anyone wasn't aware, it is still legal to hit QB's in the back / torso and in the elbow (even though I think his elbow injury was a noncontact practice injury). So, theoretically his body (and by extension - Brady's body as well) would be at the same risk today for the injuries he actually sustained that allegedly prevented him from extending his career. So that argument holds no water either.

---

That argument doesn't stand on its face. All QBs back then played with the same rules, just like all QBs now play with the same rules. You have to measure them against their own era, and Brady is better.