Tom Brady or Joe Montana

[thurley42]

That brings me to another point. You're ready to throw 3 guys currently playing into the top 10 ALL TIME, while others are tempted to throw in Brees, Rivers, Favre, and others. The NFL has changed so much over the years. I don't see how Big Ben can be thrown into the top ever just because he has 2 Super Bowls. He was more of a caretaker for his first one anyway. That's like saying Trent Dilfer should be in the conversation because he won a Super Bowl at Tampa. He didn't screw up while the running game and defense won it for them.

It's tough to compare QBs, but you have to look at their era too. With this many great passing QBs, is it dumb luck or is it the style of the game? How many passing QBs were throwing for over 4000 or 5000 yards when Marino did it? How about now? Before Marino broke those records (now broken by Favre), the last guy was Fran Tarkenton in the 70s! The game has become a lot more pass oriented now.

There are many elements to consider. Using solely stats doesn't work because of the era. Using playoff record ignores the team you're on and your opponent. Does anyone think Manning playing in place of Brady wouldn't have won those 3 Super Bowls, or possibly more? Come on now.

No...no i don't think he would have won the super bowls...because Manning and Bellichek would never work....

and I said Ben could be if he continue to improve. You said that the game has become much more pass oriented....exactly, that's why modern QB's are much better, because when you are handing off 75% of the time, how great of a QB are you really? you are more of a faciliatator or a caretaker....

I don't dispute Marino is up there....but when you get into GOAT you have to have Super Bowl wins...at least 1 or 2...because after all that's what it is about......

 

[Beta84]

No...no i don't think he would have won the super bowls...because Manning and Bellichek would never work....

and I said Ben could be if he continue to improve. You said that the game has become much more pass oriented....exactly, that's why modern QB's are much better, because when you are handing off 75% of the time, how great of a QB are you really? you are more of a faciliatator or a caretaker....

I don't dispute Marino is up there....but when you get into GOAT you have to have Super Bowl wins...at least 1 or 2...because after all that's what it is about......

If you hand it off 75% of the time but when you pass 25% of the time you make every pass for a 75 yard touchdown, would that QB be lesser because he didn't always throw it? So Manning playing in the 60's would be an inconsequential QB because he didn't pass as much, even if he was just as good? That's a bogus argument.

As for Super Bowl wins mattering, players don't control the team they play on. Brady and Montana played on some TOP NOTCH teams. Marino played on teams that had no run game or defense. You seriously don't think Marino would win some titles if he had the supporting casts those guys had? Why bother calling the QB GOAT if you're really looking for the QB playing on the best teams?

 

[Larry Gude]

Tough call.

Montana was on dynasty teams, teams you can't build or keep together if you could somehow build them today. Those 49'er teams also had to compete with a few other dynasty type teams in their prime, the Giants, Cowboys and Redskins so, it's a same/same type argument because Brady's Pats are competing against teams that are the best of this era.

He was also one of those 'just win' guys in college and the pros.

He also has legendary heroics including the drive to beat the Bengals and, of course, 'the catch'.

I think Brady has done more with far less talent around him than Joe had around him.

If I was starting a team today with either a 25 year old Tom or 25 year old Joe, I'd take Brady.

Make that Joe.


:shrug:

 

[BuddyLee]

I was trying to point out that there wasn't really a drop off in the team after Montana left and Young took over.

That's like saying Aaron Rodgers is just as good as Brett Favre. Some may agree with that statement by noticing Rodgers' statlines in his few seasons played. Sure, Rodgers is the better QB now but he's also 20 years younger. I think you're leaving out the fact that Montana was much older than Young. Hell, the 49er fans supported Montana even when he left and beat Young and his old 49er team with the KC Chiefs.

 

[itsbob]

Give credit where it is deserved. How great would Montana been on a Bellichek(Sp?) team.

EVERY year he's beyond successful and the following year they break the team up and start new and are just as successful. Other than Brady it's been a new team almost every year and every year they are in the hunt even with other team throw aways like Woodhead.

Montana and Bellichek would have been unstoppable le.

 

[BuddyLee]

Give credit where it is deserved. How great would Montana been on a Bellichek(Sp?) team.

Flip that. How would Brady have faired under a Bill Walsh team?

I think Bill Walsh tops Vince Lombardi. He's one of the best coaches ever.

 

[General Lee]

Farve has past his prime. Any decent QB that has played as long as he has, could break the records Farve has/did. Notice I said decent QB. Compare some of Farve's records at 10 years in vs. others at 10 years. Now Farve is in his 20th season, no wonder his numbers are great, its 20 years of stats.

Brady is one hell of QB, but I think Peyton is better. As previously mentioned by others, it takes a whole team to make a QB work and no doubt Brady has that. Peyton just excels in so many ways. Very intelligent QB. He can read every defense and call audibles to counter the D, as do most QB's but Peyton is damn good at it. Hell, he does most of the play calling, not the coaches.

 

[Larry Gude]

Flip that. How would Brady have faired under a Bill Walsh team?

I think Bill Walsh tops Vince Lombardi. He's one of the best coaches ever.

I think Bill Walsh was a butcher. His teams pushed the boundaries of line play to the extent that rule changes were made to protect defensive players from his roll and double team chop blocking schemes.

Walsh was a good coach and certainly won however, he assembled talent, too. However, as far as coaching, the 49'ers won without him. That is not the case with the Packers. And Lombardi's impact was instant the other way as well, immediately improving the Packers and Redskins from day one.

If we look at the relationship with players, there is no comparison either. Lombardi cared very much for his players and made them better people in addition to outstanding professionals.

Bill Walsh does not belong in the same sentence as Vince Lombardi. Unless it is to say Lombardi was a better, much better coach than Bill Walsh.

 

[donbarzini]

I think Bill Walsh was a butcher. His teams pushed the boundaries of line play to the extent that rule changes were made to protect defensive players from his roll and double team chop blocking schemes.

Walsh was a good coach and certainly won however, he assembled talent, too. However, as far as coaching, the 49'ers won without him. That is not the case with the Packers. And Lombardi's impact was instant the other way as well, immediately improving the Packers and Redskins from day one.

If we look at the relationship with players, there is no comparison either. Lombardi cared very much for his players and made them better people in addition to outstanding professionals.

Bill Walsh does not belong in the same sentence as Vince Lombardi. Unless it is to say Lombardi was a better, much better coach than Bill Walsh.

If we ever meet the first two rounds are on me

 

[struggler44]

Brady; Montana had a running game and the best receiver in the game at the time(and a new west coast offense) and the defensive players have evolved so much today compared to the 80's.
Manning, Montana, Elway,Marino.......all won and did some remarkable things when on the field but when crunch time comes and the game is on the line, I'll take Brady.

 

[Beta84]

Brady; Montana had a running game and the best receiver in the game at the time(and a new west coast offense) and the defensive players have evolved so much today compared to the 80's.
Manning, Montana, Elway,Marino.......all won and did some remarkable things when on the field but when crunch time comes and the game is on the line, I'll take Brady.

I was going to come in here saying Elway had the most 4th quarter comebacks in his career, with Marino being right behind him and Brady/Manning setting the standard for current QBs, but it looks like Marino actually did it better than Elway (ref: Link 1). In fact, it looks like Big Ben Roethlisburger might be the best at the comeback if you go based on average.(Link 2)

So Brady is just ahead of Big Ben, well behind Manning, and well behind the kings of comeback (Marino/Elway).

 

[Baz]

Brady, without hesitation.

 

[BuddyLee]

I still stick with Montana.

 

[CrashTest]

I've been saying for years that Brady is overrated and a product of the pass protection he gets and the fact that he has 2-3 receivers wide open on every play.

Tom Jackson on ESPN last night apparently agrees with me. He said about Brady and QB's in general "after you knock 'em around a bit, they're all the same".

 

[Larry Gude]

I've been saying for years that Brady is overrated and a product of the pass protection he gets and the fact that he has 2-3 receivers wide open on every play.

Tom Jackson on ESPN last night apparently agrees with me. He said about Brady and QB's in general "after you knock 'em around a bit, they're all the same".

See, this is all to suggest that no one ever rattled Elway or Montana or any other great and that they won every chance they got which is far from true. The Pats are, obviously, down some on skill with no speed guy to stretch the D and the Jets did a FABULOUS job a well.

it is one thing to suggest how to beat someone. It is another to suggest that someone with Brady's record is somehow substandard, just a qb in general, based on this game.

I don't care how good your protection is, 4 picks in a season is on the qb. So is the accuracy and timing of the passes.

Montana, Elway, Brady, Manning, they only win it all when it was all clicking; their offensive weapons, good line play, solid defense and good special teams. As I have said before, the Patriots have never been dominant in their Superbowl wins; barely getting by. They make the most of what they have and the precision of Brady has made them, at times, overwhelming.

Is he the best ever? Probably not. However, over rated is a bit much me thinks!

 

[CrashTest]

Cover his receivers and knock him around a bit, and he throws more balls in the dirt than McNabb.

 

[jetmonkey]

He can't force Crumpler and Welker to catch TDs that hit them right in their booger hooks :shrug:

 

[Tilted]

Okay, comparisons between Brady and Montana obviously no longer work.

So, Rodgers or Montana - who you got?

 

[Baz]

I'd still take Brady over Montana.

Brady's receivers weren't getting open on Sunday. I lost count of how many plays Brady was waiting, waiting, waiting for ANYONE to get open before grounding the football to avoid a sack.

If he had half of a Jerry Rice out there, we'd be talking about the Pats/Steelers game this week.

 

[Larry Gude]

Okay, comparisons between Brady and Montana obviously no longer work.

So, Rodgers or Montana - who you got?

Hannah or Joe?