Joe's my guy. I can't argue with Brady as GOAT tho (if that miraculous SB comeback is legit). I can step back and take my Barry Bonds glasses off *
Printable View
I'm not saying he did or he didn't. That information is not known. Realize that YOU DO NOT KNOW
I just find it hilarious that Bonds & Clemens have been crucified when a good portion of the league was doing the exact same thing but face no consequences.
Jeff Bagwell is an obvious steroid user yet waltzes into the HOF & Raffy didn't look like a steroid user at all.
My point being, we don't know. We simply don't know yet two of the best players of all time are singled out
Most accomplished football player? Brady
Best football player? Jerry Rice
Most accomplished baseball player? Ruth and Bonds
Best baseball player? Bonds, but if you remove him for roids, then Ruth or Ted Williams
Most accomplished basketball player? A bunch - Abdul-Jabbar, Jordan, Wilt, Russell, Magic
Best basketball player? Jordan
This is where people get unnecessarily stuck when talking about this.
You can't compare athletes currently to athletes 100 years ago. If Bonds were around in 1920, or if Ruth were around today, that difference would be mostly eliminated. LOL if you think Ruth wasn't absurdly athletic and talented. We see a guy with some fat on him who didn't run real fast when trotting around the bases, but the guy was an elite pitcher and then the greatest hitter of all-time and completely changed the game single-handedly. He didn't do that because he was big, or because he swung a big bat.
He did that because he was a phenomenal athlete, had fantastic hand-eye coordination, pitch recognition, fluidity, etc. He was an amazing athlete.
You have to compare athletes to the era in which they played. Before roids, Ruth was better compared to his era. Once he was roided out, Bonds was roughly equal to Ruth, at best. Therefore, I'm saying Ruth had the better career.
Joe Montana to me is the better player and quarterback. Tom Brady has had the better career. Or accomplished as Smootness said.
It's like Ruth and Bonds. You have to take the era that they played in to account. If Montana plays in this era where he could play into his 40's I think he would have numbers similar or better than Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers, etc. (Note when all of the last four played)
I think Montana is different as a QB than Brady. Brady is a classic drop back passer. Montana really excelled on the run- and that's what I like about him and the difference to me and why I pick him. Montana was a threat to run and he was also deadly as a passer on the run. Look at his signature play- the Catch. Montana changed the game as a QB in a way similar to Ruth. He was one of the first more dual threat-ish QB's in an era where guys like Terry Bradshaw was the template. The 49ers offensive scheme and how they used their personnel was a major change in football that changed the game forever.
Also- if I need to make a comeback or have to pick one guy to win a Super Bowl- I'm picking Montana all day. He didn't win as many as Brady- but when he did play he was basically perfect. Joe Montana changed what NFL coaches were looking for in QB's. I don't think Brady changed the game like that. What's the difference between Brady, Manning, and Brees skill set wise?
Randy Moss and Gronk are garbage? Brady probably has the best TE/H-Back in NFL history to throw to. What happened to Brady last year after Gronk retired?
Montana's first two Super Bowl were with Dwight Clark, Freddie Soloman, and Renaldo Nehemiah as his WR's. In 1984 the 49ers top receiver was a running back when they won the Super Bowl.
The thing I can't get over was how calm he was AT ALL TIMES. His poise and confidence were off the charts.
In addition to what you just said. How many people are looking for celebrities in the crowd before the game winning drive of a Super Bowl when you are down in the last minutes? Oh hey- look! Is that John Candy. Cool!