It is now time for the Brady GOAT case

It's not only the victory and the 4th ring but the circumstances, after throwing 2 picks, the defense putting them in a disgraceful position 10 points behind one of the best defenses of all times, he kept battling and had a spectacular comeback with 2 TD's in the 4th quarter, surgical, tearing them apart, commanding the show like a Maestro. Balls of steel.

Doesn't matter the quality of the QB, do that under those circumstances is critical, that was CLUTCH. HE BROUGHT THEM BACK.

GOAT UNDISPUTED.

First off the Brady versus Manning debate is closed, end of story, in fact it's not even close.

The only one left to compare Brady to is Joe Montana. Montana had some tough losses to the Giants in the playoffs. Their defenses beat him to a pulp a couple of times. (I forget who the Giants Defensive Coordinator was back then , but he had a great defense ! You have to give Montana credit for his 4 SBs, BUT they were all very close in years and personnel! What Brady has accomplished bringing 6 different teams to the SB and now winning another one with a team that included only 1 other starter that had previously won a SB with the Pats is amazing!

Plus the Pats are young! He could easily make another maybe even two more trips to the SB, he wins those games and he will be the undisputed GOAT!!!!

TBR said:

The most ignorant argument I will ever see is that "Montana is 4/4 in SuperBowls! Never lost! 100% winning percentage! No interceptions! Brady lost 2!"

That just means he failed to get there 2 more times. While of course it's all about winning the SuperBowl, making it there is a nice accomplishment in itself. Anyway, if you look at his stats in a couple of those games Montana had the chance to reach the SuperBowl again, he failed MISERABLY. He had a completion % of 39% in an NFC Championship game!

It's such a deceiving argument to make. Only simple minded losers will bring it up. Unfortunately, a lot exist.

Click to expand...

He started an AFC Championship game as well for the Chiefs

Mv1029 said:

Brady is doing it in the era of Free Agency - much harder to do it in this environment. Montana had the luxury of having tremendous consistancy with his offensive weapons and Jerry Rice didn't hurt either.

Click to expand...

All of the era and supporting cast stuff evens out over the long run. Facts is facts. Brady is the GOAT.

Paul Pierce agrees, check his twitter, it's funny

Hasselback on ESPN was STILL making the case for Manning... Probably been mentioned in this thread before but it bears mention again because his buffoonery is almost transparent; it's as though he drew the short straw to argue against Brady...

I've always said Joe Cool was a better QB than TB. Last night changed it for me.

The tie-breakers for me are these. Longevity and length of sheer excellence.

Montana was not Montana after the elbow injury in 1990. He was 34 years old. His last 3 seasons were slightly above average as he was dealing with injuries with a couple of playoff appearances as a key part of the team but IMO did not carry them.

Since turning age 34, Brady has been durable, played at a Pro-Bowl-level and in the past four seasons has 4 AFCCGs, 2 SB appearances, and 1 SB and SB MVP. Brady is STILL carrying this team.

If there was any doubt that TB hadn't surpassed Joe Cool jut yet, last night's 4th quarter, #4 SB and MVP cemented it.

Discussion over.

A few of the strawman arguments I'm hearing on sports radio and from the mediots.

1. Joe Montana never lost a Super Bowl. Correct because he lost earlier in the playoffs. You can't penalize somebody for doing better in the overall process more often.

2. The 49ers had to go through SB champions in their conference like Washington, NY Giants and Chicago. What are Indy, Baltimore and Pittsburgh?

3. Brady won his with great defenses. Go look at how historically good those SF defenses were. Brady also carried some historically bad defenses to the SB and Conference championship games.

People will argue that 4-0 in SB's beats 4-2. I don't understand that logic.

Getting into the biggest game of all is ridiculosly hard. A team needs everything to work out, they need so many breaks and a alot of luck because it's a super competative sport. Brady lost 2 SB's by divine intervention and won 4 of them. Adding up all the cap, the Offensive crew they had around them I think no doubt he's the greatest of all time.

AndyJohnson said:

I want the 5th, but the case really seems closed already.
Look at it another way, what argument can you make for anyone else?

Click to expand...

Stephen Smith made an interesting case yesterday on first take. Would be interesting to see you dissect it.

He was respectful. Like everyone else, he was very focused on Super Bowl win percentage. Brady will never catch that percentage, mathematically speaking it is impossible, so those that focus on that one stat will always be able to bring it up. To make the case you need to really mount an undeniable argument that that one statistic is not a magical trump card.

The goal posts will always be moved to favor Montana. That is just how people are. It used to be that TB needed his 4th ring to surpass Montana. Now that it has happened they are skewing logic and favoring new stats that dont support the old ideals.

When TB gets his 5th ring they will say Montana never lost a SB. You wont be able to ever intelligently discuss this with biased morons.

neuronet said:

Stephen Smith made an interesting case yesterday on first take. Would be interesting to see you dissect it.

He was respectful. Like everyone else, he was very focused on Super Bowl win percentage. Brady will never catch that percentage, mathematically speaking it is impossible, so those that focus on that one stat will always be able to bring it up. To make the case you need to really mount an undeniable argument that that one statistic is not a magical trump card.

Click to expand...

Here is the undeniable case
Brady 4 SB wins 2 SB losses 2 one and dones
Montana 4 SB wins 4 one and dones

Until you can show me how getting eliminated in the first round is better than winning your way to the SB that argument is awful.

Its Stephen A Smith. Guy couldn't debate a tic tac toe victory correctly.

Sometimes these argumens become outright silly. Does anyone believe you could comprise and maintain the rosters the 49ers had during the 80's & early 90's in the free agency / salary cap era? Come on now!

Seems to me the stats are quite easy to rank as to which matters the most:
1.) # of SB wins if tied
2.) # of SB appearances if tied
3.) # of playoff wins if tied

Then your friggin tied

BTW Moss was on the back side of his HOF career

Winning the super bowl is easier than getting to the super bowl if you look at the super bowl as just a single isolated game. Regardless of opponent getting to the super bowl is much harder than beating a single opponent, therefore getting to super bowls is a major (the main, really) accomplishment as far as difficulty is concerned.

Jim Kelly's 4 straight super bowls was a huge accomplishment. A much more impressive feat than winning a single super bowl.

To have a rough gauge I consider a super bowl loss worth about a half a game, like a tie.

Brady's 4-2 is better than Montana's 4-0 because Brady would be a total of 5, vs Montana's 4.
Jim Kelly 0-4 would be worth about 2.
Peyton Manning = 1.5

If Brady had been 0-6 it would have been worth about 3, less than Montana's 4 and rightfully behind Montana.

If Brady were to go to another Super Bowl and lose it would only distance him even further. Anyone who argues that Montana > Brady because Brady is 4-2 and not 6-0 is making a fool's argument.

I think Brady unfairly gets docked for a few things:
1. Two SB losses...in those two games he played decent-to-good, despite a porous offensive line. In both of them it took remarkable, incredible plays for the opponent to win. In one he led a 4th quarter drive for a go-ahead TD and the defense couldn't hold. In the other the win would have been sealed had someone caught a pass. Additionally, Brady has 2 playoff one-and-done's, Montana has 4. Montana was HORRID in three of those losses...are we seriously docking Brady for GETTING TO THE SB and losing (despite giving his team a chance to win), vs flaming out before getting there?
2. Brady hasn't been 'magic' in the playoffs. He's been steady-Eddie, his lows aren't that low but he also hasn't blown teams out the way Montana did in many of his playoff games. Again though, is the goal to obliterate an opponent or get by them? Brady's done enough to win, consistently, more than anyone in football history. 12 playoff runs in his 13 healthy seasons, and just 2 one-and-dones, just two real stinkers (Denver in 2005, Baltimore in 2009). Every...other...year he's done enough for the team to win, and in most cases they have.

What people fail to realize--well, the people who are still propping up Montana and certainly those defending Manning--is that Brady isn't playing for stats, his numbers mean nothing if they don't win. He has consistently given his team a chance to win, and frequently led them on late drives for the winning score. Manning has been HORRID many, many years leading to playoff losses. Montana less frequently but he did it as well, and with the GOAT wide receiver as a buffer against those horrid games.

I love Montana, he was incredible. Brady's been better, and he's not done yet.

Brady has thrown Super Bowl TD passes to different 11 receivers, lol i'm sorry Joe its over. Brady is now better.

TommyBrady12 said:

Also, consider who the hall of famers Montana played with - Dwight clark, jerry rice, fred dean, ronnie lott, roger craig. Hall of famers brady played with - Moss (and they didn't win the super bowl with him); possible HOFers - Ty Law, Vince Wilfork, Gronk, Revis. He won his first 3 titles without a HOFer.

Click to expand...

At least Vinatieri and BB are going to the HOF. I think Bob Kraft will as well. Gostkowski has an outside shot though he wasn't part of the first three. Seymour might have had a shot too had he stayed in NE. BTW I don't think Bruschi, Vrabel, Law or Harrison get in but they were all excellent. Brady may not have had the eye popping talent SF did but he was always supported by a great FO and deep, solid, winning teams.

There are those of course that will never change their mind and have decided who in their opinion is the GOAT and that's fine, I don't really care.

But if you asked yourself, what QB gives you the best chance to win a superbowl in this era and you could choose anyone from history, it would be pretty tough to argue selecting anyone over Brady.

The real beauty is he isn't done.

AndyJohnson said:

Now that he has ring #4 and 3 of the MVP that matters trophies he no longer sits behind Montana.
Both after 15 years in the league btw.

SB Championships
Brady 4
Montana 4

Conference Championships
Brady 6
Montana 4

Playoff Records
Brady 21-8
Montana 16-7

Playoff One and Dones
Brady 2
Montana 4

Playoff TD/Int
Brady 53/26
Montana 45/21

Playoff Passing Yards Per Game
Brady 253.3
Montana 251.0

Regular Season

Win/loss
Brady 160-47
Montana 117-47
(yes, Brady has 43 more wins to the same number of losses)

Att/Comp/%
Brady 7168/4551/63.5%
Montana 5391/3409/63.2%

Yards
Brady 53,258
Montana 40,551

TDs
Brady 392 5.5%
Montana 273 5.1%

Ints
Brady 143 2.0%
Montana 139 2.6%

Rating
Brady 95.9
Montana 92.3

I don't think there is really any doubt that Tom Brady is the GOAT.

Click to expand...

This whole idea of a GOAT for a QB going back some 50 plus years is ridiculous.

How can you possibly make a legitimate comparison between two different eras of football?
It's like saying
man A can do a vertical of 10 inches
man B can do a vertical 30 inches
therefore man B is better at jumping than man A
but NOT true . because man A was jumping on earth and man B was jumping on the moon

Conditions when Montana played were much different than they are now.
For one, today defenders can't breathe on a receiver without a penalty so getting yards
today is lot easier that when Montana played.
Then there is salary cap. Now it's harder to surround a QB with top quality receivers without
reducing quality at other positions. So Montana had an advantage in this respect.

But really, too may variables to make a valid comparison over 50 plus years.
Now you could say TB is the GOAT for the last 15 or 20 years .... this is a valid assertion, IMO.