Do you buy into the narrative of Joe Montana's "unblemished Super Bowl record" vs. Brady?

[Tony2046]

Lmao no, where do you come up with that? Did you read my long post i made Probably about half an hour ago. But trying to discredit Montana because the Afc was weak is absurd. My dead ball era reference was completely different. Im trolling even though I have repeatedly said that Brady is the GOAT I guess or at the very least tied

The AFC was crap back then. The NFCCG was considered the battle for the SB Trophy for most of those years. Saying the AFC was crap does not belittle Montana because he had to win the NFCCG.

A lot of those SB's were blowouts.

 

[RobertWeathers]

When did I say Tyler was a borderline hall of famer? Do you really need to make things up to discuss something?

Craig surely was but we both know I didn't say that about Tyler.

post 210 your quote in my post. I know I sure as hell didnt make that up.

Tyler was a very good back probably among the top 7-10 in the league at his time. Smith was average starter at best and probably a few notches below that.

Tyler was above average w/ a couple good years.

He was top 10 in the NFC. Not NFL.

 

[Ring 6]

post 210 your quote in my post. I know I sure as hell didnt make that up.



Tyler was above average w/ a couple good years.

He was top 10 in the NFC. Not NFL.

He surely was top 10 in the NFL in the year you chose.

 

[Ring 6]

post 210 your quote in my post. I know I sure as hell didnt make that up.

You were comparing him to Tyler and CRAIG which is why I said a guy averaged 5.1 and a near hall of famer. And means Craig.

 

[Pats1989]

BB has said that there are some players that elevate their games when the lights are brightest. There are also players that then to lose their ability to discipline their games when the pressure is on.

TB12 said it best that 90% of his wins are due to him not making losing plays and the the other team screwing up.

I agree that a QB needs help to win games and a Super Bowl. If TB didn't have a good D making plays and a GOAT kicker he'd be down on the list. But what Tom did every time was not LOSE a game for his team by making dumb throws, trying to do too much at critical points in the big games and make the plays that need to be made when they need to be made. Joe Cool is the same way. Same with Aikman, Starr, Bradshaw,, etc..

As far as Dan goes, Marino is a great QB but IMO is in the same bucket as Jim Kelly, Fran Tarkenton, Randall Cunningham, Warren Moon, Rich Gannon and those guys who won during the regular season but when the big time playoff pressure was on them they lost discipline in their games, tried to do too much or made a "negative" play when their team could not afford one.

Jim Kelly's Bills made four straight Super Bowls. Other than the Giants ( Which Kelly put them in position to win),they were definitely a notch below Washington & Dallas.

As for Marino, his defense was never up to par.

 

[stinkypete]

This is the stupidest argument in professional sports media.

Brady made it to and lost two Super Bowls. He made it to and lost 4 AFCC games. In all, that's 10 appearances in the NFL's final four.

Montana made it to four Super Bowls. He made it to - and lost - 1 NFCC game. In his other playoff appearances he has several first round exits including a shutout at the hands of the '86 Giants and a loss to a Wade Wilson's 8-7-1 Vikings in 1987.

So we're going to fault Brady for making it consistently farther and occasionally failing? The flaw in this logic is incomprehensible. It's typical American bias-driven anti-fact.

 

[fightingirish595]

I Think another thing that pushes Brady over the edge is durability. Montana was hurt a lot, and didn't play as long. To me that counts for a lot

 

[fightingirish595]

This is the stupidest argument in professional sports media.

Brady made it to and lost two Super Bowls. He made it to and lost 4 AFCC games. In all, that's 10 appearances in the NFL's final four.

Montana made it to four Super Bowls. He made it to - and lost - 1 NFCC game. In his other playoff appearances he has several first round exits including a shutout at the hands of the '86 Giants and a loss to a Wade Wilson's 8-7-1 Vikings in 1987.

So we're going to fault Brady for making it consistently farther and occasionally failing? The flaw in this logic is incomprehensible. It's typical American bias-driven anti-fact.

In all fairness to Montana, he was facing The Parcells, Belichick, and LT giants in Nearly half of his playoff losses. And he also had to do deal with the bears defense which he never lost to. Those defenses were better than what Brady as faced. But at the end it is a team game, so keep that in mind

 

[stinkypete]

In all fairness to Montana, he was facing The Parcells, Belichick, and LT giants in Nearly half of his playoff losses. And he also had to do deal with the bears defense which he never lost to. Those defenses were better than what Brady as faced. But at the end it is a team game, so keep that in mind

All true, I just don't agree with the notion of judging failure based on the size of the stage. A Super Bowl loss is a greater accomplishment than a divisional round loss.

Super Bowl wins: Brady - 4, Montana - 4
Super Bowl losses: Brady - 2, Montana - 0
Conference championship losses: Brady - 4, Montana - 3
Divisional round losses: Brady - 2, Montana - 2
Wild card losses: Brady - 1, Montana - 2
Missed playoffs: Brady - 1, Montana - 1

In their playoff losses, Montana has put up more true duds than Brady - scoring 3 points each in two games against the Giants and losing to a non-playoff-quality Vikings team in '87. Brady's Patriots have been competitive in every playoff game except the Ravens in '09.

Brady's Patriots have 3 more playoff appearances than Montana's Niners/Chiefs. In those appearances Brady made the AFCC game once and made the Super Bowl twice. To me, this gives Brady a convincing edge.

 

[fightingirish595]

All true, I just don't agree with the notion of judging failure based on the size of the stage. A Super Bowl loss is a greater accomplishment than a divisional round loss.

Super Bowl wins: Brady - 4, Montana - 4
Super Bowl losses: Brady - 2, Montana - 0
Conference championship losses: Brady - 4, Montana - 3
Divisional round losses: Brady - 2, Montana - 2
Wild card losses: Brady - 1, Montana - 2
Missed playoffs: Brady - 1, Montana - 1

In their playoff losses, Montana has put up more true duds than Brady - scoring 3 points each in two games against the Giants and losing to a non-playoff-quality Vikings team in '87. Brady's Patriots have been competitive in every playoff game except the Ravens in '09.

Brady's Patriots have 3 more playoff appearances than Montana's Niners/Chiefs. In those appearances Brady made the AFCC game once and made the Super Bowl twice. To me, this gives Brady a convincing edge.

I feel like people are thinking that I think Montana is better which I never said. In fact I've said on this thread that Brady is the GOAT. and to me is the deciding factor here is durability and longetivity which had contributed to the statistical difference between the two. MY beef is with the people who think it's not even close

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Losing 49-3 in the divisional round > losing 21-17 in the Super Bowl. I thought this was a given.

Regards,
Chris

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I disagree. You can easily argue the league wasn't watered down in the 80s and if you were a #1 seed you were a damn good team. With that said I think the NFL was a physcially tougher conference and it took NFC coaches like Shanny and BB to get the AFC to play at that level.

The 2001 Rams and the 2004 Iggles were very good teams.

2003 Carolina? Meh.

2007 and 2011 G'ints? Meh. Those were shoulda woulda couldas

For Joe Cool , 81 and 88 Bungles were 1 seed teams. 14-2 MIA was a #1 seed w a HoF QB. 1989 Donkeys were a #1 seed w/a HoF QB.

88 Bungles had a ton of chances to win that game. Walsh and Wyche knew each other's offenses which is why it was so low scoring.

Given that Tom Brady has the highest winning percentage AND the highest total career wins of any QB in NFL history, I wonder how you feel about Joe Montana's Super Bowl record. Would you consider Montana's Super Bowl record superior to Brady's? If so, is that enough to make Joe Cool the GOAT?

The narrative says that Montanna was simply perfect when it came to the biggest games of his career. Not simply because of him never losing a Super Bowl, but also.....never committing a turnover or interception! In fact, Joe Montana has the highest career passer rating of any NFL quarterback starting in the Super Bowl.

In his four Super Bowl starts, Joe Montana went 4-0 and completed 83 of 122 passes for 1,142 yards and 11 touchdowns with no interceptions, earning him passer rating of 127.8

If you buy into the notion of perfection or having an unblemished record, than I suppose it'd be hard to argue against this. However, I think you have to take into account how ccompetetive those Super Bowl wins were.

It's a lot easier to avoid interceptions when your blowing out your opponent. But for Brady, nearly all of his Super Bowl appearances have been close, tight affairs going into the fourth quarter. I wonder if Montana advocate are making too much of this stat line. What do you think?

I will agree to their argument just as soon as Jim Plunkett is enshrined into the NFL HOF.

Not that I really do agree; I simply acknowledge and appreciate Plunkett.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I feel like people are thinking that I think Montana is better which I never said. In fact I've said on this thread that Brady is the GOAT. and to me is the deciding factor here is durability and longetivity which had contributed to the statistical difference between the two. MY beef is with the people who think it's not even close

People (media) like to pick and choose stats to back up their usually wrong beliefs.

If you plug in Elgin Baylor or Julius Erving into MJ's era and team, do you really believe they'd do any worse?

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I don't get why people are trying to quantify losing in playoff rounds. Just stop. I don't care about who went to more championship games or super bowls. I care about rings. They are tied in the category.

I think two things hurt Joe's legacy, both obviously through no fault of his own: The NFC was the dominant conference, and every season whoever climbed out of there was winning the Super Bowl. Next, the Niners dumping him in favor of Young. Essentially, SF wound up winning one more title when they really could have won three more with Joe at the controls. Montana played great right up until he retired.

Joe needed DeBartolo Jr. to stand up for him just to keep his job in '86. Two titles later, you had to wonder what the hell the guy had to do earn any cred out there.

Anyway, Tom, Joe and Johnny U. are in a pretty elite class, to me.

 

[fightingirish595]

People (media) like to pick and choose stats to back up their usually wrong beliefs.

If you plug in Elgin Baylor or Julius Erving into MJ's era and team, do you really believe they'd do any worse?

Elgin would have rings lol

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I'm sure I will get crap for this, but really if you think about Brady and Montana, they became what they became because of coaching. Based on draft status, physique and college play, both could have washed out as backups without ever getting a chance.
Bill Walsh ran an offense that was ahead of its time, and ahead of the defenses of the time. Bill walsh taught Montana to be the smartest QB in the league, because he was running the smartest offense.
When Brady took over as the starter here, who was his QB coach? Bill Belichick. They met for hours every day watching film, with BB teaching Brady everything he could absorb.
Now, both of those QBs get credit for having the talent to use that knowledge and the intelligence to absorb it, and the work ethic to be great, but without Walsh and Belichick both could have ended up as unknown backups who bounced around, and maybe never got the shot.

You nailed it.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Elgin would have rings lol

Six, at least...

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

while not all time beat Pit and Oakland. Pretty legit

I agree. Just like '85 Patriots who beat Jets, Raiders and Dolphins on the road with (what should have been) their backup QB.

Roger is absolutely an all-timer. He did have top teams with stars, but he knew what to do with them and had a great coach in Landry.

Staubach is in the tier just under the greatest, along with Starr, Bradshaw, Baugh, Marino...there are others in there too.

And no, Manning and Elway are nowhere near that level.

 

[fightingirish595]

I agree. Just like '85 Patriots who beat Jets, Raiders and Dolphins on the road with (what should have been) their backup QB.

Roger is absolutely an all-timer. He did have top teams with stars, but he knew what to do with them and had a great coach in Landry.

Staubach is in the tier just under the greatest, along with Starr, Bradshaw, Baugh, Marino...there are others in there too.

And no, Manning and Elway are nowhere near that level.

If Marino played today it wouldn't be fair but I think you undervalue elway

 

[RobertWeathers]

If Marino played today it wouldn't be fair but I think you undervalue elway

You are assuming Marino's decision making would improve and he would play mistake-free football.