Montana is now the #2 GOAT

[wasabaka]

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.

[Todd4State]

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.

[DudyDawg]

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

[DudyDawg]

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

[wasabaka]

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.

[wasabaka]

Woah-

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

[dawgday166]

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.

[Todd4State]

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.

[Todd4State]

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.

[Todd4State]

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.

[basedog]

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.

[DudyDawg]

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.

[DudyDawg]

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

Where'd you get 5-0?

[smootness]

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.

[HSVDawg]

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?

[smootness]

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.

[DudyDawg]

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.

[HSVDawg]

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.

[smootness]

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.