Brady and Montana Factually

[RDS11]

The tough part about including Starr is that the game was not QBcentric in those days and has evolved more and more that way.
The job Starr did was as admirable, but the importance of the QB was much less in those days.

At that time, the QBs were calling 95% of all offensive plays....so the QB was even more important back then.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

No matter how you or anyone else spins it, winning 3 superbowls in 4 years is not a fluke. It's never been done before and won't be done again anytime soon.

[Troy Aikman]

Hey!

[/Troy Aikman]

Regards,
Chris

 

[MoLewisrocks]

At that time, the QBs were calling 95% of all offensive plays....so the QB was even more important back then.

Lombardi's offense ran roughly 17 plays, most famous of which was the toss sweep. He actually believed that the best defense was a good offense, so not sure now Vince would fare here today...but the key to it all for him was perfecting a limited number of plays to the point that even if the defense knew exactly what was coming they could not stop it...

There is also some question as to just how kosher one of their wins was on the road to another championship. Seems the heating coils under Lambeau malfunctioned or something leading to the legendary ice bowl one point last second victory...

 

[PatsFan24]

Let's give that up...

If the Tuck Call wasn't reversed, there was no Dynasty.

If Kasay doesn't put the OT KO out of bounds, maybe we don't win SB XXXVIII.

If Donovan McNabb doesn't throw up all over himself (literally), maybe we don't win SB XXXIX.

...

As the old saying goes, "close" only counts in Horseshoes....

Time to move on.

Really? You don't think if the Pats win that game Brady is not thought of by many as the best ever? When you break down what it would have been, there is clearly a strong argument for it. There is a strong argument anyways. I moved on from the loss long ago.

Also, the tuck play was the right call....

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The tough part about including Starr is that the game was not QBcentric in those days and has evolved more and more that way.
The job Starr did was as admirable, but the importance of the QB was much less in those days.

The "importance" of the QB may well have been "less," but I'm not sure I'd agree with characterizing it as "much less."

As someone else pointed out, the QB called all the plays on the field back in the day.

Yes, the passing game has played a far more important role in the NFL since the introduction of the West Coast Offense (60+% of scoring), but, if you look at the Starr era in Green Bay, the passing game still accounted for nearly half (47%) of that fabled team's scoring (226 out of 484 regular season TD's from scrimmage), despite the presence of two HOF backs in the backfield with Bart.

So, I really don't think these are apples and oranges eras, such as I would agree we would see if we made a comparison with the game before the QB moved under center or before the T-Formation.

This is an interesting reprise of the old discussion: do we judge a QB primarily by his stats or by his results on the field?

I've always held, in supporting the "Brady is better than P. Manning" argument, that, despite Peyton's gaudy numbers, you have to tilt towards Tommy and his Championships in judging the greatest QB of this era.

In Starr's case, his teams went to six NFL Championship Games and won five. I don't see how he isn't one of the three GOAT QB's and, personally, I put him at the top of the list, with Joe and Tommy coming in two and three. I'm not about to say that someone who disagrees with that might not have valid points in support of his/her argument, but I don't think it's a view that can be dismissed by construing the Starr era as so different from the current era that he can't be considered as GOAT.

 

[Ring 6]

At that time, the QBs were calling 95% of all offensive plays....so the QB was even more important back then.

Thats debatable. It not like they created the game plan.

 

[Ring 6]

The "importance" of the QB may well have been "less," but I'm not sure I'd agree with characterizing it as "much less."

As someone else pointed out, the QB called all the plays on the field back in the day.

Yes, the passing game has played a far more important role in the NFL since the introduction of the West Coast Offense (60+% of scoring), but, if you look at the Starr era in Green Bay, the passing game still accounted for nearly half (47%) of that fabled team's scoring (226 out of 484 regular season TD's from scrimmage), despite the presence of two HOF backs in the backfield with Bart.

So, I really don't think these are apples and oranges eras, such as I would agree we would see if we made a comparison with the game before the QB moved under center or before the T-Formation.

This is an interesting reprise of the old discussion: do we judge a QB primarily by his stats or by his results on the field?

I've always held, in supporting the "Brady is better than P. Manning" argument, that, despite Peyton's gaudy numbers, you have to tilt towards Tommy and his Championships in judging the greatest QB of this era.

In Starr's case, his teams went to six NFL Championship Games and won five. I don't see how he isn't one of the three GOAT QB's and, personally, I put him at the top of the list, with Joe and Tommy coming in two and three. I'm not about to say that someone who disagrees with that might not have valid points in support of his/her argument, but I don't think it's a view that can be dismissed by construing the Starr era as so different from the current era that he can't be considered as GOAT.

The NFL in the 60s was predicated on the run. That doesnt take anything away from how well Starr played, its just that the fraction of the outcome of the game that is determined by QB play is much higher today than it was then.

 

[Ring 6]

My point was that, while Brady and Starr both lost a championship game, Starr ended up with five rings in the end. Doesn't matter when they lost and I don't think anything I said implied the same.

I thought you were talking about Montana when you said

But for now, Joe never went to a league title game that he lost and he gets the edge

If Brady wins his 4th yuor argument says that Montana is better because he didnt lose a 5th which happened because he lost in an earlier round in one of the 8 years he didnt get to a SB.

 

[rojo8401]

Thanks for this Andy. Pretty interesting stuff.

I grew up watching Montana and remember how incredible he was.

When I first started watching the Pats Steve Grogan was the QB. Tough SOB but little did I know that someday we would have a QB who will likely surpass the best I ever saw in Joe Montana.

In summary, Toughest QB of All Time goes to Steve Grogan!!

 

[Yehoodi]

My point was that, while Brady and Starr both lost a championship game, Starr ended up with five rings in the end. Doesn't matter when they lost and I don't think anything I said implied the same.

Pats 74, so I take it you would agree with me that the whole zero INTs in SBs for Joe doesn't really matter . . . I know that gets a lot or press and many like to state that, but for me, it doesn't matter when he throws the picks, in the first round or in the SB, so long as it happens in the playoffs it doesn't matter and is all the same . . .

that zero INTs in SB to me is very overrated . . .

 

[Yehoodi]

I don't understand. How can we leave Bart Starr (five NFL championships and six championship games, including the first two SB's) out of this discussion? Or did the history of the NFL begin in 1980?

Otto Graham belongs in the discussion as well. I'd be willing to admit that Graham, even though he is technically a member of the "Modern Era" of the league, played in a different time, but let's at least recognize he was a great QB, who won four league championships and who more than earned the right to be considered in the discussion of the GOAT, even if he played before 1980.

Pats 74, I will have to agree with you 100%, i think a lot of people and some in the media, think that football championships started with SB 1, and somehow SB wins are more "official" that NFL Championships . . . we both know that is not true and a NFL Championship pre Merger is just as valuable as any SB . . . of coarse those last four NFL Championships before the Merger (GB, GB, Balt, and Minn) kind of get lost in the shuffle . . .

for me Graham, Starr, and Baugh are very high on my list, and I too have Starr ahead of TB and Montana . . . actually i have Baugh and Graham both ahead of Montana . . .

 

[Yehoodi]

Let's give that up...

If the Tuck Call wasn't reversed, there was no Dynasty.

If Kasay doesn't put the OT KO out of bounds, maybe we don't win SB XXXVIII.

If Donovan McNabb doesn't throw up all over himself (literally), maybe we don't win SB XXXIX.

...

As the old saying goes, "close" only counts in Horseshoes....

Time to move on.

Again I agree with you 100%, but dissent on SB 39 . . . i think a lot of Pats fans think that we "really" won those three SBs and just bearly missed two more, '06 and '07 . . .

However, I look at things just the way you have, except I think we really dominated in 2004 and not one really could beat us, yes Phila was close, but we had control of that game, up by 10 and exchanged time for field position on that phila TD drive, and we ended up winning . . .

but I will add to your list on SB 38, the divisional game against the Titans, many forget that Bennet missed a pass in the red zone with a minute or so left which would have set up the Titans for a game winning TD, he bobble dthe ball and Eugene Wilson came late (later than Harrison on Tryee) and knocked it out . . .

for me, the Pats team has gotten themselves in the hunt for 5 rings, '01, '03, '04, '06, and '07, with '04 the one that we were going to win without the need for luck . . . however, as the ball bounces one is not going to win every time . . .(like Craig fumbling away the 49ers three peat, and Clark being too tall to make 'the catch'). so the pats got themselves to the SB table 4 times 01, 03, 06, and 07 and waited for lady luck to shine or them or not, she shined on them in 01 and 03, as you indicated but did not shine on them in 06 (AFCCG - one of many plays go our way, we win) and 07 (any number of a small handful of things go our way on the last drive we win) . . .

but overall one really cant ask for more than 50% from lady luck and that is what we got 2 out of 4 chances . . . altho in our losses 06 AFCCG and SB 42 more than just one thing had to go wrong as opposed to our wins where is was really just on thing per game (tuck rule, kick out of bounds, Bennet miss), so there is a difference here, it wasn't totally even as more had to be unlucky in our losses that luck in our wins . . .

surely would of love to have had the 19-0 or the one in '06 to get 4, but it didn't happen . . .

I think are some fans that want lady luck to go 4 out of 4 for us . . . we see maybe we will be 3 out of 5 sometime soon . . .

but bottom line for me and the pats legacy, i see one solid we win without and luck [04] and 4 were we did our job now it is in her hands . . .

 

[Observer]

We are approaching the point where Tom Brady will have as many games started and passes thrown as Joe Montana. Here is hiow they compare at this point, all facts, no opinion.

CAREER STATS

Brady
150 starts 116-34 w/l 3180/4982 63.8% 37105 YDS 7.4/att 279/111 TD/Int 95.7QB rating
Montana
164 starts 117-47 w/l 3409/5391 63.2% 40551 YDS 7.5/att 273/139
TD/Int 92.3 QB rating

PLAYOFFS
Brady 14-5 3 SB Trophies
19 games 62.2% 4407 yds 30/16 TDInt 85.7rating
Montana 17-8 4 SB Trophies
25 games 62.7% 5772 yds 45/21 TDInt 95.6rating

By the end of this season they will be within 5 career starts and about 100 pass attempts. Depending upon the post season, the primary factor separating these 2 may be David Tyrees head.

Trade Brady to a competent team and he wins two more, settling this debate once and for all. Make it happen BB!

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The NFL in the 60s was predicated on the run. That doesnt take anything away from how well Starr played, its just that the fraction of the outcome of the game that is determined by QB play is much higher today than it was then.

Yes, that's a valid point and I tried to put some stats around it in my post. But even in Starr's time, the QB was directly involved in producing nearly half the scoring and also called nearly all the plays from scrimmage.

I think the bottom line is that when you put Starr, Montana, Brady and Graham into any discussion, the differences are very small so we look to things like "number of titles" to, in many ways arbitrarily, distinguish among them.

Were Starr's five titles in the fifties and sixties with one loss in a title game on a team ridden with future HOF'ers better than Montana's four titles with no losses in a title game in the uncapped/no FA eighties or Brady's three or four titles with one loss in a title game in the capped/FA 00's and (hopefully) 10's? We could argue that forever with no self-evident conclusion, in my opinion.

I think the best we can ever hope for among reasonably well-informed people, given so many divergent perspectives and views, is consensus on the three or so greatest of all time, with people ranking them based on their own perceptions of the game.

And, to a point you make in another post, I really do think it's remarkable that Montana never lost a title game once he had that stage. There's really no comparing the pressure and stakes between a conference or divisional round game and the SB itself.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Really? You don't think if the Pats win that game Brady is not thought of by many as the best ever? When you break down what it would have been, there is clearly a strong argument for it. There is a strong argument anyways. I moved on from the loss long ago.

Also, the tuck play was the right call....

Sure, I think that way, as does nearly every Pats fan. But what I think is also irrelevant since he lost that game. "Would have been," in this context, is almost meaningless. And, when I want to drive myself really crazy, I reflect that not only would Brady have ascended into the Quarterback Pantheon, but the entire Patriots team would have become the stuff of legend...mentioned whenever the discussion turns to "Greatest Sports Team of all time," whether in a pub in London arguing "soccer" and "football" greats to cricket pitches in India to rugby fields in Australia.

And, I agree that the tuck call was correct, but few outside of New England do. But that, too, is irrelevant, since that was the call and it did determine how the game turned out; Oakland fans can argue "Would have been" all they want and it won't change a thing (just as we can argue that Ben Dreith probably cost us our first SB...as soon as Tommy's fumble was reversed on the field that night and the Oakland bench erupted, I thought back to the Dreith call and said to my wife, "Now Oakland knows that Karma is a B!^@h."). I only cited it and the OB KO to make the point that games are determined by a lot of things both out of a team's control and on which there will be disagreement until the cows come home.

That is why four or five championships is so remarkable; just think of how many things had to break the right way, how many uncontrollable variables had to be "just right," for one QB to win that many. It's why the stat matters and always will and why Tommy will have to win his fourth to be definitively in the GOAT discussion.

 

[signbabybrady]

Trade Brady to a competent team and he wins two more, settling this debate once and for all. Make it happen BB!

that would be more painful to watch than The Giants SB.

 

[Uncle Rico]

Were Starr's five titles in the fifties and sixties with one loss in a title game on a team ridden with future HOF'ers better than Montana's four titles with no losses in a title game in the uncapped/no FA eighties or Brady's three or four titles with one loss in a title game in the capped/FA 00's and (hopefully) 10's? We could argue that forever with no self-evident conclusion, in my opinion.

there's another aspect the think about: Those Niners teams were loaded with Hall of Famers. for a team that has Been at the top of the league for so long, the Patriots will send very few to Canton. Says a lot about BBs coaching and TFBs level of play.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

there's another aspect the think about: Those Niners teams were loaded with Hall of Famers. for a team that has Been at the top of the league for so long, the Patriots will send very few to Canton. Says a lot about BBs coaching and TFBs level of play.

Absolutely! I pointed out in an earlier post, Starr played with at least 11 HOF'ers on the field and sidelines. Joe's years as starter in SF overlapped with four HOF'ers, including his number one target, the greatest receiver of all time. Steve Young was another as was his HC. But, it's not just those who make it into Canton that we have to consider, it was the depth that Walsh was able to keep on those teams that made a huge difference.

Brady will probably end up having overlapped with about the same number of Canton denizens as Montana: Belichick for sure and probably Vinatieri. Moss, Rodney, Brewski and Seymour will all be in the discussion. But, when you think of all the first class players, just below HOF level, that they lost to Free Agency over the years, you realize how remarkable an accomplishment this has been for Brady and Belichick.

 

[FSF]

No matter how you or anyone else spins it, winning 3 superbowls in 4 years is not a fluke. It's never been done before and won't be done again anytime soon.

Your assumption that all Patriot's fans didn't know of them until 2001 is just about the same level as my assumption that your an ***hat. If the Pats had a filling up of the bandwagon it really happened during the '85 SB run or the hiring of Parcells and drafting of Bledsoe. And just for the record it wasn't JUST Pats fans that dismiss spygate for being a minor offense, but many other "so-called" experts and former coaches and players agreed as well, but were ignored because the story was just too sensational and popular to let go by the media seeing the Pats and BB's quest for perfection were on the front burner.

My assumption that Patriot's fans jumped on the bandwagon in 2001 is not such an assumption when you read ignorant statements like the above comment - that "winning 3 Super Bowls in 4 years is not a fluke. It's never been done before".

Not even 10 years before - the Cowboys won Super Bowls in 92, 93 and 95.

As far as SPYGATE goes - no one will ever know how much of an impact it had. There is one thing however, that cannot be denied. In Super Bowl XLII, the Giants got a read on the Patriots offensive line calls - you can hear them talking about it in the NFL Films Super Bowl Highlight Recap of the game. No one can deny they key to the Giants win of that game was the pass rush of the Giants owning the Patriots pass blocking. Knowing what was coming helped New York gain an edge.

It's a real mark of a bandwagon group of fans when someone who pulls for another team knows more about your own teams history than your own fan base.

 

[NinjaZX6R]

My assumption that Patriot's fans jumped on the bandwagon in 2001 is not such an assumption when you read ignorant statements like the above comment - that "winning 3 Super Bowls in 4 years is not a fluke. It's never been done before".

Not even 10 years before - the Cowboys won Super Bowls in 92, 93 and 95.

As far as SPYGATE goes - no one will ever know how much of an impact it had. There is one thing however, that cannot be denied. In Super Bowl XLII, the Giants got a read on the Patriots offensive line calls - you can hear them talking about it in the NFL Films Super Bowl Highlight Recap of the game. No one can deny they key to the Giants win of that game was the pass rush of the Giants owning the Patriots pass blocking. Knowing what was coming helped New York gain an edge.

It's a real mark of a bandwagon group of fans when someone who pulls for another team knows more about your own teams history than your own fan base.

Yeah. I remember seeing that. They knew all our audibles to certain situations. Knew what our protection codes were.

Heck, in the Ravens loss, Ray Lewis said the same exact thing.
Makes you wonder why don't change them every game.