Green Bay Press..Brady surpasses Starr.. Wolf agrees

Good props for #12, article compares Brady and Starr, the author agrees and even puts in Ron Wolf support for good measure. Difficult to compare, because of the different NFL scenarios, but the comparison bodes well for our guy.

http://greenbaypressgazette.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061119/PKR07/611190658/1959
In some ways, Tom Brady is a 21st-century version of Bart Starr, but better.

The parallels don't carry across the board, and the game has changed so much from the 1960s to today that you can't take comparisons too far.

But there are a couple of striking similarities between these two quarterbacks, the great winners of their eras.

Both were relatively lightly regarded prospects coming out of college. Starr was the 200th selection of the 1956 NFL draft; Brady was the 199th selection of the 2000 NFL draft.

Neither had any outstanding physical talents. Brady's horrible combine testing included running the 40-yard dash in 5.24 seconds, and a 24?-inch vertical jump.

"In the coolness and confidence of what they do, they're very similar in their style," said Paul Wiggin, who played in the NFL from 1957 to 1967, the prime of Starr's career, and is a pro scout for the Minnesota Vikings.

"Brady's probably a stronger-armed type guy, Bart was more the glue that kept a great team together. They're similar in the sense of what they mean to their respective teams."

In a telephone interview this week, Starr said it wasn't for him to judge any similarities he might have with Brady. But he reeled off the qualities he's noted in watching Brady from afar, and they were the words that best describe Starr as a player.

"I think he's very poised and consistent in his performance," Starr said. "He's obviously very tough and courageous. I think he's a strong leader by example, and as we all know, the most noble form of leadership is by and through example. He certainly seems to do that. And he seems very reserved and calm and a great leader."

Ron Wolf, the former Packers general manager who was a scout for the AFL's Oakland Raiders in the 1960s, said that even though Starr is a Hall of Famer, Brady clearly is the better player.

Nice article, the guys they got to do the comparisons' know their stuff. Thanks for posting this.

Interesting quote:

"...without Brady, the Patriots would be the Denver Broncos."

Makes sense. If Brady wasn't in NE, the Pats would be beating the Pats as often as Denver does

I mentioned the similarities a couple of years ago, I beleive after the Pats 3rd SB win. A lot of people kept comparing Brady to Montana, but really, in style he is very Starr-like. Comes up big in big games, hardly makes mistakes in SB's (1 int in 3 SB's), and is the ultimate field general. Brady was never really mobile like Montana, he does have great pocket awareness though, and is able to move side to side, or back, to avoid the rush.

I consider myself somewhat of a football historian, I've been enamored with NFL Films since the early 70's. I'm lucky enough to own the SB DVD's I-XXX, and watching Starr in SB's I & II, you can see the similarities.

I became a Packer fan in 1959, so I got to watch Bart Starr almost his entire career.

I would agree that Brady is a better QB on talent, but they are near equals on the "it" factor.

Things were a lot different then. I've always thought the best Packer team was the 1963 version. They lost two games that season - both to eventual champion Chicago. There was no playoff system, so the Packers played for 3rd place. There is no doubt in my mind that Starr and the Packers would have walloped the Bears in a playoff, and they would have added another title.

And the NFL title was way more important than the Super Bowl in the first couple of years of that contest.

When Starr was playing all you ever heard about was other QBs like Johnny Unitas. Bart Starr used to kick his ass all over the field almost every time they played. You could tell he took great satisfaction in clobbering the media favorite.

From afar, the New England Patriots have been the only team to be really like the 60s Packers, and Brady is a big part of why.

Johnny Z said:

I became a Packer fan in 1959, so I got to watch Bart Starr almost his entire career.

I would agree that Brady is a better QB on talent, but they are near equals on the "it" factor.

Things were a lot different then. I've always thought the best Packer team was the 1963 version. They lost two games that season - both to eventual champion Chicago. There was no playoff system, so the Packers played for 3rd place. There is no doubt in my mind that Starr and the Packers would have walloped the Bears in a playoff, and they would have added another title.

And the NFL title was way more important than the Super Bowl in the first couple of years of that contest.

When Starr was playing all you ever heard about was other QBs like Johnny Unitas. Bart Starr used to kick his ass all over the field almost every time they played. You could tell he took great satisfaction in clobbering the media favorite.

From afar, the New England Patriots have been the only team to be really like the 60s Packers, and Brady is a big part of why.

Click to expand...

It's funny that you mentioned all everyone mentioned during the Starr era was Unitas, history seems doomed to repeat itself. All most talking heads talk about nowadays is another Colts QB.

scott99 said:

It's funny that you mentioned all everyone mentioned during the Starr era was Unitas, history seems doomed to repeat itself. All most talking heads talk about nowadays is another Colts QB.

Click to expand...

Yeah, except Unitas also led his team to championships, and unlike Peyton, wasn't a dork.