Brady miffed about losing, hitting the weights

[smg93]

Bledsoe was a victim of his own immense talent. From Pop Warner to NCAA Washington State, he was so talented that all he had to do was show up and he was far and away the best player on the field. He never developed a strong work ethic because he never needed it in order to dominate his competition. But when you reach the NFL, you are competing against the best of the best of the best every game. You can no longer dominate with talent alone - you need to work hard all year round.

This reminds me of the time I graduated from BU in the early 90's. Ross Perot came to speak during Graduation and say what you want about him, he made a statement that has stuck with me to this day. He said he wasn't worried about the C students because they worked hard to get to this day. He went on to say that he was more concerned about the A students in the class. He spoke about how it was easy for the A students to get to graduation day and that they probably were not as prepared as the average student was when it came to working diligently to achieve a goal because they had things come their way so easily all throughout their academic lives.

This thread has reminded me once again of Perot's words and how true it is that in this world, no one can get by on talent alone. It takes a lot of sweat to reach goals in the real world. Tom Brady is an excellent example of that.

 

[nescott]

The guy is not happy with 3 thats good !!!!

 

[the taildragger]

The guy is not happy with 3 thats good !!!!

bingo...he literally expects to win every year -- let's hope he never gets therapy for this.

A friend was trying to persuade me that Tiger Woods is "more balanced" in his life but I'm not buying it. Anyone who wants to go down as the greatest of all time is a definitively unbalanced individual -- it's basically a Conan-like obsession to dominating opponents (aside from the bit about "the lamentation of the women").

Tom's cool and he can "compartmentalize" things, but when he's in game mode (i.e. most of the week), he's not exactly "fun" to be around -- Bledsoe was ALWAYS fun to hang around, totally laid back, the fishing analogy is perfect -- there's no way I can imagine tom fishing unless we're talking about wrestling with some big game in the ocean -- we do not have a fly fisherman as our QB. There's no malaise in that locker room anymore...no excuses for losing.

It was different in '02 because we won the last game, but when they walked off that field in Denver they were ALREADY thinking about '06...the confidence/passion/impatience in Bruschi's voice the other day on WEEI was palpable...and as a fan, I'm already fired up too...I can't remember ever anticipating a season as much as this.

They will not be fun to play...Bring your ponchos for Indy and Denver -- 2006 could be one bloody massacre.:rocker:

 

[rabthepat]

I am glad to hear Tom is upset...

I thought I was the only one. I am still not over it. 5 turn overs cost us 3 in a row. I was the biggest Drew defender back in 2001 but I eventually woke up and saw the competitive spirit Tom has that I wished Drew had.

Yet, we should never forget the legitimacy Drew brought to our franchise.

 

[Terry Glenn is a cowgirl]

Not to start a Brady/Bledsoe debate but that shows you the difference between them also. Bledsoe used to go to Montana every off-season and what did he ever win.

Just goes to show you Brady has the heart of a lion. We as Pats fans are so lucky to be able to watch him week in and week out. Then, in about 15 years we'll be able to watch him getting his gold jacket as a first ballot hall of famer.

Bledsoe lives in Whitefish in the offseason. I see him in the bars every so often.

 

[flutie2phelan]

[Bledsoe's] footwork could have gotten a lot better, but i dunno if he could ever have moved in the pocket like brady does.
those smooth movements, half-steps, look uncoachable. you either have them or not.

Beg to differ.
A few off-seasons ago, Brady dedicated it to improving his footwork and shiftiness.
Another off-season, he dedicated to improving his play fakes.
He wasn't this good when he arrived here ... he made himself the best.

 

[the taildragger]

Beg to differ.
A few off-seasons ago, Brady dedicated it to improving his footwork and shiftiness.
Another off-season, he dedicated to improving his play fakes.
He wasn't this good when he arrived here ... he made himself the best.

agree however,

I think the point is that he does some things intuitively in the pocket that can't be taught, that bledsoe and most others just can't do...rather than, "he's no better now than he used to be." his footwork is better now, but there are other things that just seperate him from Drew...As a 19 year old freshman at Michigan he'd still be looking down the field when he got hit in practice -- that's just innate toughness and poise that can't be taught. He was competitive as heck back then too -- even as a freshman he'd get pissed if the defense was dominating the offense in practices -- it wasn't just his low draft status that made him competitive, that just added fuel to the fire.

IMO, it's also the biggest thing that seperates him from Manning -- the Colts built their entire offensive scheme around Manning's preference to get the ball out quick on the first couple reads rather than asking him to sit back there and read-and-react all day long (this is also why we don't need towering receivers) -- not saying we don't use timing patterns or that manning doesn't occasionally go through an actual progression -- just that it's more of a situational thing for both. anyway, this is why Manning and Drew tend to break down against quality defenses.

work ethic is obviously part of what makes him the best, but his physical skills (arm, footwork, vision) are flat out incredible -- put me in the camp of people who are sick of the talking heads who continue to overlook all of his raw PHYSICAL talent and try to tag him as pure intangibles and an average arm.

When people look at how he's developed in the NFL, the biggest mistake is to go back to '01 and make silly statistical comparisons -- the reality is:
A. our offense totally sucked back then
B. BB didn't open things up until they got behind or when the games were close.

They handled him with kid gloves because he lacked experience and because the suck factor of the overall team (overrated defense, O-line, running game) meant they had to play a short-passing possession style game. Whether the conservative playcalling was constructive or not, the bottom line is he was pretty damn good back then too. I defy anyone to come up with another HoF QB who could've won a SB with the 2001 Pats...keep in mind they were 70-1 odds BEFORE the 0-2 start and the Bledsoe injury...that was a joke team (that I have a ton of respect for) that BB and TB should go straight to Canton for turning into champions -- regardless of whatever else they've accomplished ever since.

 

[BradyBirdYazOrr]

While Brady is home worrying what he can do to help us win Peyton is studying film from a Texans game seeing why he didnt get that fifth touchdown pass.

 

[flutie2phelan]

....
the suck factor of the overall team (overrated defense, O-line, running game) meant they had to play a short-passing possession style game. .... ...that was a joke team (that I have a ton of respect for) that BB and TB should go straight to Canton for turning into champions -- regardless of whatever else they've accomplished ever since.

That is a very interesting way
of praising BB and TB ...
and disparaging the all-time gritty gents most of us adore.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Great posts..and I agree totally with you on DB...the weird thing is when he was here..very few really understood the "work ethic thing". Sure, it was mentioned, but downplayed considerably. But again, it was all his arm and being a BIG time QB..work?? Underplayed..totally. I think many were glad the Pats had a QB like DB...he saved the franchise. But when you look back, he never did the small things needed..and now one can see that. Totally 20-20 hindsight, but in the big picture, I really believe totally overlooked. It was all his talent..his arm more than anything. A QB?? equals arm...a BIG arm. I think now, one understands it all better. Not only at QB but all positions and what it takes to win at football. Back then, I really feel Patriot fans were not as knowledgeable and really just happy the team was winning and not in St Louis. (Or later Hartford..) But having geon up on Parilli and Grogan..different eras...and Brady?? The pro's pro!!!! I agree..like Bird..but also like Russell..who played a different mind game.

No.
Many folks, self included were calling out Drew for his inability to see what the D was giving and taking it, instead going for the big play way too often. We called him "The Statue". He had a penchant for finding opposing LBs and throwing the ball to them - the 'Kevin Henry' syndrome. The rump swab 'Bledsoe Krishna' fans on USENET would go ballistic with any such criticism of "The Franchise". but never forget there were folks early on who pointed out that Drew did not improve and in fact lost ground relative to the league as he went to Minnisoter or wherever in the offseason and made no substantive effort to improve his game.

 

[the taildragger]

That is a very interesting way
of praising BB and TB ...
and disparaging the all-time gritty gents most of us adore.

I'm quoting myself -- "(that I have a ton of respect for)" -- not sure if you caught that? What else should I have added to persuade you I "adore" them?

I LOVE THE '01 PATS -- I'll take on anyone who doesn't think they were the greatest Cinderella story in NFL history, maybe in all of sports history. But the challenge for you is to persuade me that another QB/HC combo could've taken that team to a winning record, much less the playoffs or a championship.

That was a historical anomoly -- no other HoF coach or QB has ever taken a comparable team to a championship...it's not even close.

That they were supreme overachievers is what made them so great...I hope we don't ever forget that.

P.S. the guys on that team (including those most loyal to Drew -- Troy and Lawyer) have said the QB change was the predominant reason that season turned out like it did...so perhaps they're disparaging themselves?

 

[Brick]

I'm so spoiled as a fan that the Brady story came as no surprise. You just come to expect it from him, the guy is the total packgae about what a QB should be.:rocker:

I just hope they can get a solid #2 guy after Branch. Brady can gun them at will but he needs targets with the ability to get open. Even Superman needs help.

 

[Fanfrom1960]

I LOVE THE '01 PATS -- I'll take on anyone who doesn't think they were the greatest Cinderella story in NFL history, maybe in all of sports history. But the challenge for you is to persuade me that another QB/HC combo could've taken that team to a winning record, much less the playoffs or a championship.

That was a historical anomoly -- no other HoF coach or QB has ever taken a comparable team to a championship...it's not even close.

I disagree. 1981 49ers, Walsh and Montana. There was no Jerry Rice yet. No John Taylor. No Roger Craig. Here are the Running Backs:

Earl Cooper
Johnny Davis
Walt Easley
Lenvil Elliot
Paul Hofer
Ricky Patton
Bill Ring

Wide Receivers

Matt Bouza
Dwight Clark
Mike Shumann
Freddie Solomon
Mike Wilson


Tight Ends

Brian Peets
Eason Ramson
Charles Young

OK, they had Ronnie Lott and Fred Dean. Still, your point is very well taken, and I'm sure Belichick and Brady would have no problem being compared with Walsh and Montana.

 

[the taildragger]

I disagree. 1981 49ers, Walsh and Montana. There was no Jerry Rice yet. No John Taylor. No Roger Craig. Here are the Running Backs:

Earl Cooper
Johnny Davis
Walt Easley
Lenvil Elliot
Paul Hofer
Ricky Patton
Bill Ring

Wide Receivers

Matt Bouza
Dwight Clark
Mike Shumann
Freddie Solomon
Mike Wilson


Tight Ends

Brian Peets
Eason Ramson
Charles Young

OK, they had Ronnie Lott and Fred Dean. Still, your point is very well taken, and I'm sure Belichick and Brady would have no problem being compared with Walsh and Montana.

The '81 Niners sent 6 players to the Pro Bowl:
Ronnie Lott (10)
Montana (8)
Fred Dean (4)
Dwight Hicks (4)
Randy Cross (3)
Dwight Clark (2)

In addition to future Pro Bowlers:
Eric Wright (2)
Fred Quillan (2)
Jack Reynolds (2)
Keena Turner (1)
Carlton Williamson (1)
Keith Fanhorst (1)

That's 12 Pro Bowl caliber players, compared to 8 total for the '01 Pats. Just three from '01: Troy, Lawyer and Tom, and future or past Pro Bowlers: Cox, Law, McGinest, Izzo, Seymour.

Of the 8 PB caliber players, Tom and Troy were the only on offense. TB's O-line was a virtual "where are they now" episode. The payroll for the starting players on the offense was well under $10M...If I recall the Rams had an offense in excess of $40M that year.

The Niners were 7 point favorites over Cincinatti in the Super Bowl. As you'll recall, the Pats were 9 point underdogs in the AFC Championship and 14 point underdogs against the Rams...at one point the line was 16 points. It was by far the biggest upset in SB history.

The '81 Niners had the 2nd ranked defense in NFL and gained 654 yards more than they allowed.

The '01 Pats had the 24th ranked defense (6th in scoring defense) and ALLOWED 467 more yards than they gained. The only other team in history to win a championship after allowing more yards than they gained was the '80 Raiders who allowed just 17 more yards than they gained.

On a yards per carry basis they both had lousy ground games: the Pats were 24th in rushing and the Niners were 28th, both marks are unheard of for a championship team (I like Antowain and he ran hard and played his guts out, but I'm just stating facts here).

The scoring differential was also similar:
'01 Pats 431-309 = 122
'81 Niners 449-336 = 113

But given all the talent that JM/BW had, they did not in my opinion come close to outperforming TB/BB's achievement in '01.

Joe also took the best team in the league (by far) from 85-87 and choked big time in three successive playoffs...that's why Walsh signed Young.

I love Montana, but when it comes to TB comparisons, I'm afraid Tom has never choked as bad as Joe did in '85, '86, or '87...in fact, he would've had three more rings had he QB'd those ridiculously talented teams.

Another fun fact, on an INT per ATT basis, Tom is twice as efficient as Joe was in the postseason...take a second and let that sink in.

touche

I would even go further and refute the widely held belief that BB had more to do with that championship than TB. In the 18 games prior to Tom taking over, production jumped from 16.4 PPG (5-13) under Drew to 24.1 PPG (14-3)...a 47% increase in production. Without that boost neither BB nor any other coach would've even made the playoffs. After that early loss to Miami, TB got pretty emotional and publicly called out the team for lazy practice habits, that in my opinion was the tipping point or the big bang.

"No coach has ever won a game by what he knows, but by what his players have learned" - amos alonzo stagg
"The problem with football is that it places too much emphasis on one position" - Lombardi

For the past 50 years, it's always been about the QB.

 

[flutie2phelan]

I'm quoting myself -- "(that I have a ton of respect for)" -- not sure if you caught that? What else should I have added to persuade you I "adore" them?

I LOVE THE '01 PATS -- I'll take on anyone who doesn't think they were the greatest Cinderella story in NFL history, maybe in all of sports history. But the challenge for you is to persuade me that another QB/HC combo could've taken that team to a winning record, much less the playoffs or a championship.

That was a historical anomoly -- no other HoF coach or QB has ever taken a comparable team to a championship...it's not even close.

That they were supreme overachievers is what made them so great...I hope we don't ever forget that.

P.S. the guys on that team (including those most loyal to Drew -- Troy and Lawyer) have said the QB change was the predominant reason that season turned out like it did...so perhaps they're disparaging themselves?

Oh, i caught your ton of respect, all right.
But the total package of expression seemed ambivalent ... as if you were saying,
"For such a crummy team to win it all, Tom and Bill had to be supermen."

Since you clearly remember much more than i do about the details ... not to mention comparisons to other great teams ...
i am happy to have you affirm your admiration of those legendary overachievers.

 

[Fanfrom1960]

The '81 Niners sent 6 players to the Pro Bowl:
Ronnie Lott (10)
Montana (8)
Fred Dean (4)
Dwight Hicks (4)
Randy Cross (3)
Dwight Clark (2)

In addition to future Pro Bowlers:
Eric Wright (2)
Fred Quillan (2)
Jack Reynolds (2)
Keena Turner (1)
Carlton Williamson (1)
Keith Fanhorst (1)

That's 12 Pro Bowl caliber players, compared to 8 total for the '01 Pats. Just three from '01: Troy, Lawyer and Tom, and future or past Pro Bowlers: Cox, Law, McGinest, Izzo, Seymour.

Of the 8 PB caliber players, Tom and Troy were the only on offense. TB's O-line was a virtual "where are they now" episode. The payroll for the starting players on the offense was well under $10M...If I recall the Rams had an offense in excess of $40M that year.

The Niners were 7 point favorites over Cincinatti in the Super Bowl. As you'll recall, the Pats were 9 point underdogs in the AFC Championship and 14 point underdogs against the Rams...at one point the line was 16 points. It was by far the biggest upset in SB history.

The '81 Niners had the 2nd ranked defense in NFL and gained 654 yards more than they allowed.

The '01 Pats had the 24th ranked defense (6th in scoring defense) and ALLOWED 467 more yards than they gained. The only other team in history to win a championship after allowing more yards than they gained was the '80 Raiders who allowed just 17 more yards than they gained.

On a yards per carry basis they both had lousy ground games: the Pats were 24th in rushing and the Niners were 28th, both marks are unheard of for a championship team (I like Antowain and he ran hard and played his guts out, but I'm just stating facts here).

The scoring differential was also similar:
'01 Pats 431-309 = 122
'81 Niners 449-336 = 113

But given all the talent that JM/BW had, they did not in my opinion come close to outperforming TB/BB's achievement in '01.

Joe also took the best team in the league (by far) from 85-87 and choked big time in three successive playoffs...that's why Walsh signed Young.

I love Montana, but when it comes to TB comparisons, I'm afraid Tom has never choked as bad as Joe did in '85, '86, or '87...in fact, he would've had three more rings had he QB'd those ridiculously talented teams.

Another fun fact, on an INT per ATT basis, Tom is twice as efficient as Joe was in the postseason...take a second and let that sink in.

touche

I would even go further and refute the widely held belief that BB had more to do with that championship than TB. In the 18 games prior to Tom taking over, production jumped from 16.4 PPG (5-13) under Drew to 24.1 PPG (14-3)...a 47% increase in production. Without that boost neither BB nor any other coach would've even made the playoffs. After that early loss to Miami, TB got pretty emotional and publicly called out the team for lazy practice habits, that in my opinion was the tipping point or the big bang.

"No coach has ever won a game by what he knows, but by what his players have learned" - amos alonzo stagg
"The problem with football is that it places too much emphasis on one position" - Lombardi

For the past 50 years, it's always been about the QB.

If Joe choked so badly as you say, why is he considered the best QB ever? I hope it doesn't happen again, but TB is as much to blame in the loss to Denver as anyone on the team. Did he choke? Sure, N.E. did way overachieve, shocking the world by defeating the Rams, with Brady a sixth round choice, then SB MVP, 5 - 11 one year to SB title the next. If you look at the 49ers, Montana was a third round choice, and the 49ers were 6 - 10 the year before they won their first super bowl, and Joe was MVP of the game. As for being favored for the super bowl, the 49ers just happened to face an AFC team that was far less super than the team of the previous decade, the Steelers.

Both teams came out of nowhere, to me.

 

[the taildragger]

If Joe choked so badly as you say, why is he considered the best QB ever? I hope it doesn't happen again, but TB is as much to blame in the loss to Denver as anyone on the team. Did he choke?
Both teams came out of nowhere, to me.

I totally agree with the last point. For all the talk about Walsh's system, he was a heck of a scout too, and, with the help of Eddie-D's cash machine, totally turned their roster over in a couple years -- but Joe deserves credit for all the winning...coaches coach and players play.

it's my fault, but we're getting into a JM/TB thing here...but I love this stuff...

I have this argument with Mike Silver at SI all the time...he covered the Niners beat back in their glory years.

The '81 Niners are the closest comparison to the '01 Pats...but I'm still not convinced Joe/Walsh (no, not the god of gibson guitars ) had it tougher than our guys...the fact the Niners consistently faced vastly inferior AFC opponents in the SB is one of the cornerstones of my argument...yes, I'm aware the NFC Championship foes were tough, but so are the AFC Championship foes of today.

Joe is considered the greatest because his overall body of work is unmatched (for now) -- and he just had tremendous instincts, threw an incredibly catchable ball, had tremendous accuracy, leadership, etc...but when it comes to TB comparisons I hold no punches, nor do I conveniently overlook Joe's "choke years" -- which I'm willing to forgive when we're comparing him to anyone else.

When it comes to comparing playoff careers, Tom has been more consistent, done more with less, and done more in less time than Joe did.

There are technical reasons why the Bailey INT in the Denver game was at best a calculated risk/great defensive play, and at worst a bad decision, but regardless of that lone throw, his overall performance against the Broncos was hardly a "choke" and puts to shame the following three by Montana:
1985: Niners, the best team in the league, LOSE in first round of playoffs.
1986: Niners, the best team in the league, LOSE in first round of playoffs.
1987: Niners, the best team in the league, LOSE in first round of playoffs.

In all Montana had 7 losses in the playoffs.

In those 3 losses above, Joe averaged 15-of-29 (52%) for 168, 0td, 1.3int.
In Tom's only loss he was, 20-of-36 (56%) for 341, 1td, 2int.

TB is already a better postseason QB than Montana:

Playoff records:
JM: 16-7
TB: 11-1 (all-time record)

Playoff INT:ATT ratio
JM: 21ints in 732 attempts = 2.86%
JM: 5ints in 367 attempts = 1.36% (all-time record)

Playoff TD:INT ratio
JM: 2.1
TB: 3.0 (all-time record)

Average spread Niners faced in Joe's 4 Super Bowls = -6 (4-0)
Average spread Pats faced in tom's 3 Super bowls = 0 (3-0)

Super Bowl 4th-quarter comeback drives (tied or behind to take the lead):
JM: ONE 4th-quarter SB comeback drive:
* 96 yard monster against Bengals -- but he had six minutes, 3 timeouts, the 2-min warning, and the most ridiculous array of offensive talent ever assembled...the way the Niners were built that year (16 pro bowlers!) they should NOT have played Cincy close.

TB: FOUR 4th-quarter SB comeback drives (all-time record):
* SB-36, 1:21, no timeouts, 56 yards against the 6th ranked defense, to put AV in position to win the game.
* SB-38, TWO drives in final 4 minutes for 10 points against Carolina's vaunted defense (94 yards passing, 114 yards including a late phantom push off from Troy Brown).
* SB-39, engineered TD drive early in 4th quarter that put NE ahead of Philly for good...another 4th quarter drive resulting in a FG provided the winning margin.

Twice Montana threw 3 PICKS in playoff VICTORIES. There's no way the Pats win a playoff game if Tom throws 3 picks. One pick was basically all it took for us to lose in Denver (I'm sure we'll agree the Pats were cooked before he'd thrown that desperation pick at the end).

Anyway, just food for thought, I love these historical comparisons...I'll let you draw your own conclusions:eat3: ...

 

[ilduce06410]

an interesting kind of overacheivers

I'm quoting myself -- "(that I have a ton of respect for)" -- not sure if you caught that? What else should I have added to persuade you I "adore" them?
I LOVE THE '01 PATS -- I'll take on anyone who doesn't think they were the greatest Cinderella story in NFL history, maybe in all of sports history. But the challenge for you is to persuade me that another QB/HC combo could've taken that team to a winning record, much less the playoffs or a championship.
That was a historical anomoly -- no other HoF coach or QB has ever taken a comparable team to a championship...it's not even close.
That they were supreme overachievers is what made them so great...I hope we don't ever forget that.
P.S. the guys on that team (including those most loyal to Drew -- Troy and Lawyer) have said the QB change was the predominant reason that season turned out like it did...so perhaps they're disparaging themselves?

i had a funny feeling about that team all years. right around midseason they morphed into a very difficult team to beat.
they certainly didn't have marquee talent.
but IMO they got to a state where every player was winning their individual battles on every play. very few missed tackles. very few missed blocks. you saw curtis martin out in space with vrabel, it became more and more certain vrabel would wrap him up.
deep pass, no question law would make the play. blitz, either bruschi or harrison got there in time to disrupt, sack, or hammer the QB just as he threw.
antowain did an amazing job picking up blitzes.
i dunno if i'll ever have the feeling i did watching those games that season. before the SB i kept thinking, i can't figure how the rams are going to beat patriots on the field.
so yeah, they beat better teams A LOT that season. with aplomb. cause andruzzi was not gonna be pushed off the line, phifer would fill and cover just like the scheme was set up. antowain, traveling 5 miles per hour, was still gonna get 6 yards on a run to the left side.

 

[Fanfrom1960]

I totally agree with the last point. For all the talk about Walsh's system, he was a heck of a scout too, and, with the help of Eddie-D's cash machine, totally turned their roster over in a couple years -- but Joe deserves credit for all the winning...coaches coach and players play.

it's my fault, but we're getting into a JM/TB thing here...but I love this stuff...

I have this argument with Mike Silver at SI all the time...he covered the Niners beat back in their glory years.

The '81 Niners are the closest comparison to the '01 Pats...but I'm still not convinced Joe/Walsh (no, not the god of gibson guitars ) had it tougher than our guys...the fact the Niners consistently faced vastly inferior AFC opponents in the SB is one of the cornerstones of my argument...yes, I'm aware the NFC Championship foes were tough, but so are the AFC Championship foes of today.

Joe is considered the greatest because his overall body of work is unmatched (for now) -- and he just had tremendous instincts, threw an incredibly catchable ball, had tremendous accuracy, leadership, etc...but when it comes to TB comparisons I hold no punches, nor do I conveniently overlook Joe's "choke years" -- which I'm willing to forgive when we're comparing him to anyone else.

When it comes to comparing playoff careers, Tom has been more consistent, done more with less, and done more in less time than Joe did.

There are technical reasons why the Bailey INT in the Denver game was at best a calculated risk/great defensive play, and at worst a bad decision, but regardless of that lone throw, his overall performance against the Broncos was hardly a "choke" and puts to shame the following three by Montana:
1985: Niners, the best team in the league, LOSE in first round of playoffs.
1986: Niners, the best team in the league, LOSE in first round of playoffs.
1987: Niners, the best team in the league, LOSE in first round of playoffs.

In all Montana had 7 losses in the playoffs.

In those 3 losses above, Joe averaged 15-of-29 (52%) for 168, 0td, 1.3int.
In Tom's only loss he was, 20-of-36 (56%) for 341, 1td, 2int.

TB is already a better postseason QB than Montana:

Playoff records:
JM: 16-7
TB: 11-1 (all-time record)

Playoff INT:ATT ratio
JM: 21ints in 732 attempts = 2.86%
JM: 5ints in 367 attempts = 1.36% (all-time record)

Playoff TD:INT ratio
JM: 2.1
TB: 3.0 (all-time record)

Average spread Niners faced in Joe's 4 Super Bowls = -6 (4-0)
Average spread Pats faced in tom's 3 Super bowls = 0 (3-0)

Super Bowl 4th-quarter comeback drives (tied or behind to take the lead):
JM: ONE 4th-quarter SB comeback drive:
* 96 yard monster against Bengals -- but he had six minutes, 3 timeouts, the 2-min warning, and the most ridiculous array of offensive talent ever assembled...the way the Niners were built that year (16 pro bowlers!) they should NOT have played Cincy close.

TB: FOUR 4th-quarter SB comeback drives (all-time record):
* SB-36, 1:21, no timeouts, 56 yards against the 6th ranked defense, to put AV in position to win the game.
* SB-38, TWO drives in final 4 minutes for 10 points against Carolina's vaunted defense (94 yards passing, 114 yards including a late phantom push off from Troy Brown).
* SB-39, engineered TD drive early in 4th quarter that put NE ahead of Philly for good...another 4th quarter drive resulting in a FG provided the winning margin.

Twice Montana threw 3 PICKS in playoff VICTORIES. There's no way the Pats win a playoff game if Tom throws 3 picks. One pick was basically all it took for us to lose in Denver (I'm sure we'll agree the Pats were cooked before he'd thrown that desperation pick at the end).

Anyway, just food for thought, I love these historical comparisons...I'll let you draw your own conclusions:eat3: ...

Taildragger, you're not, as you sure put a lot into those posts about the '81 49ers and the '01 Patriots. You are right, the Patriots in a landlslide for best cinderella team (without the pumpkin end) ever. One last thought: I watched all of those Montana games, and I don't recall thinking that Joe was choking. He had a bad day for one, was injured in another, or the other teams just "wanted it more" that day. Or, officiating: famous Bill Walsh complaint about the refs that "no 7 foot tall Boston Celtic could have caught that ball" on a pass int. call against the 49ers. Finally, were the 49ers really the best team in those years they lost? Or, maybe I was too much of a 49ers fan at the time to see the "chokes" by Montana. I think we (mostly you) covered this comparison to the max. Cheers.

 

[the taildragger]

Taildragger, you're not, as you sure put a lot into those posts about the '81 49ers and the '01 Patriots. You are right, the Patriots in a landlslide for best cinderella team (without the pumpkin end) ever. One last thought: I watched all of those Montana games, and I don't recall thinking that Joe was choking. He had a bad day for one, was injured in another, or the other teams just "wanted it more" that day. Or, officiating: famous Bill Walsh complaint about the refs that "no 7 foot tall Boston Celtic could have caught that ball" on a pass int. call against the 49ers. Finally, were the 49ers really the best team in those years they lost? Or, maybe I was too much of a 49ers fan at the time to see the "chokes" by Montana. I think we (mostly you) covered this comparison to the max. Cheers.

I cut and paste a lot of this from earlier stuff I've already written.

I hate to make it sound like I'm knocking Joe...when it comes to Marino comparisons I always back Joe (and I'm not one of those Marino bashers either).

He did in fact develop a reputation as a choker going into the '88 season...9 years into his career, he was very good, but nobody knew he was about to go down as maybe the greatest ever.

As you point out, he was physically knocked out of the '86 divisional round in Meadowlands, but that was after throwing an early pick and some other ugly throws -- it wasn't looking good at that point. He wasn't the most durable guy, but he had unbelievable pass protection compared to our line (just stating facts not saying I don't appreciate our guys, they fight hard and do a nice job)

IMO, his best season was '88 when he really carried the team through injuries -- I felt our team last year bore a lot of similarities to that '88 Niner squad that went 10-6 and won the SB. The presence of Steve Young really pushed Joe to a new level -- but Walsh had intended to replace Joe and pulled him out of the loss to the Vikings in '87 -- the Vikes lost in the next round of the playoffs.

It is debatable whether Joe had "the best team" in either '85 or '86...in hindsight it's easy to say the Bears and Giants in those years...but my point is that back then they were seen as a competitive team to both of those squads but were really dominated by both. It is not debatable that they were the best team in '87, and that was his worst choke of all.

In '85, Joe had the 5th ranked offense in the league but managed just 3 points against the Giants...Walter Payton and the Bears put up 21 points over the same Giants defense a week later (the HoF did not ask BB for his gameplan there). Joe's nemisis got the best of him again in 1986, and some in hindsight may argue the Giants were the better team that year, but that doesn't exonerate Joe for the throws he made in the first quarter -- he won't admit it but Montana was clearly intimidated by the Giants -- a lot of guys were back then, he's certainly not alone, but that's what leads to chokes.

In '87, the Niners had the #1 rated offense AND #1 rated defense, but Joe had to be pulled from the loss to the Vikes.

There's a little glorification with Montana, which I have no problem with except when it comes to TB comparisons.

p.s. self correction, TB isn't obviously 11-1, but 10-1...I jumped the gun a little there.