Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
I can't believe this argument. It's like playing cards with my brothers kids.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
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.
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 todayQuote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
I'm brees and elway, but young was very dang goodQuote:
Originally Posted by dawgday166
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DownwardDawg
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.
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 Random Poster
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 msstate7
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 flagQuote:
Originally Posted by basedog
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 msstate7
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
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!
Brady saying he's playing til he's 45.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
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 msstate7
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HSVDawg
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.
Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
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 wasabaka