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

[RobertWeathers]

People talk about Montana's SB performance and act as if Brady doesn't come close

Let's take a look at their stat lines in their SB wins

1st SB

Montana 14/22 157 1 TD
Brady 16/27 145 1 TD

2nd SB

Montana 24/35 331 3 TD
Brady 32/48 354 3 TD 1 INT

3rd SB

Montana 23/36 357 2 TD
Brady 23/32 236 2 TD

The difference in yardage is because Montana threw for 97 yards on the GW drive because they were down with under 3 minutes to play and started at the 8 yard line and had a holding call during the drive. Whereas Pats were up 10 with 4 minutes to play and Belichick opted to play conservative.

4th SB

Montana 22/29 297 5 TD
Brady 37/50 328 4 TD 2 INT

So outside of Brady's 3 INTs. There isn't that much difference in their SB win performances.

Whats also really interesting is if memory serves, in the 81 SB Walsh called 14 straight running plays to ice the game. Essentially taking the game out of Joes hands. We all know what happened in TB12 1st SB.

Talk about polar opposite 1st SBs.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

It means nothing. Tom Brady advanced to six superbowls (heck, still has time for more) and won four of them. That's just Montana fanboys or Brady haters trying to act cute.

Oh yeah, don't even get me started on Peyton = goat argument. If superbowl losses mean anything, then Peyton is 2-2 and got embarassed by Seattle, threw a game ending pick six and was carried by his defense in one of the wins. History shows Peyton can't win the big one often by leading his team with amazing play. That's why Montana is better than Peyton. Its not the losses that matter, but how Peyton has lost and won his 2nd ring.

 

[Schmo]

4-0 is pretty on paper, but people mistake it for perfection. He played 15 years and won 4. If you want to talk about infallibility, I see it as just over the Mendoza line. The ONLY thing he has over Brady is that 0 losses, just like the only thing Peyton has over Tom is career passing yards. They've been neck and neck for a few seasons now, but we're currently witnessing Brady pass him by.

 

[fair catch fryar]

This argument ended after Brady won #4. Case closed. Brady is the GOAT.

 

[everlong]

I loved Montana when he was playing but people forget he went one and done three straight years and was 4-3 in championship games. In those days the AFC was crap so that record in those games is meaningful.

 

[Jlaff]

If we are measuring perfection, it's Montana.

If we are measuring degree of difficulty, going to 6 Super Bowls in 16 years is more impressive than going to 4 in 15.

Fiacco's Superbowl performance couldn't have been that good, all I remember from watching that game is that I lost $600 betting on the 49ers, and the lights went out at some point.

 

[Joker]

Tom Brady, after being beaten near to death in Super Bowl 42 by the relentless Giant front four, put the ball right ON Randy Moss's hands streaking down the sideline with 30 seconds left. Moss could have made that catch. I've seen the best since the 60's. Great championship QB's share a common trait...they never succumb to the pressure. Brady hit Welker in the hands in the next contest between the G-men and the Pats. Welker makes that grab and that's five Super Bowls. He dropped it. Dwight Clark made a leaping miracle catch in the end zone to give the 9ers a Super Bowl win. He drops that one and what is the narrative today?

Montana was a great championship QB...so is Brady. Manning is NOT. THAT is all that matters to me.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

People talk about Montana's SB performance and act as if Brady doesn't come close

Let's take a look at their stat lines in their SB wins

1st SB

Montana 14/22 157 1 TD
Brady 16/27 145 1 TD

2nd SB

Montana 24/35 331 3 TD
Brady 32/48 354 3 TD 1 INT

3rd SB

Montana 23/36 357 2 TD
Brady 23/32 236 2 TD

The difference in yardage is because Montana threw for 97 yards on the GW drive because they were down with under 3 minutes to play and started at the 8 yard line and had a holding call during the drive. Whereas Pats were up 10 with 4 minutes to play and Belichick opted to play conservative.

4th SB

Montana 22/29 297 5 TD
Brady 37/50 328 4 TD 2 INT

So outside of Brady's 3 INTs. There isn't that much difference in their SB win performances.

Super Bowl performances aside, I'd be curious to know how Brady's postseason passing stats compare with Montana's.

The AFC, during Montana's entire playing career, never won a Super Bowl. The outcome of those SBs never seemed in doubt ahead of time. But those NFC titles games were heavyweight matches that often pitted the 2 best teams in the NFL aagainst each other. It might make sense to look at the postseason as a whole.

 

[chumpchange]

...despite having no salary cap and a loaded team in a league without parity.

I mean, my mama could win a Super Bowl, throwing to Jerry Rice with Stickum on his gloves.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

I like how this writer sums up Montana's Super Bowl performances vs. Brady's game-winning 4th quarter drives in 3/4 of his SB wins.

Tom Brady: Clutch Performances Late in Three Super Bowls Give Him the Edge Over Joe Montana

Joe Montana’s 1st Super Bowl win over the Bengals was a grind-it-out affair, with the 49ers leaning heavily on the run in the 4th quarter while clinging to a lead over the feisty Bengals. His second Super Bowl win was against Dan Marino’s Dolphins, and it was a blowout. Montana’s finest Super Bowl moment was in his 3rd trip, when he famously hit John Taylor for the game-winning pass with :39 left. Montana’s final Super Bowl game was a 55-10 rout over the Broncos.

Here’s where Brady and Montana differ most: Whereas Joe only had one late-game rally, Brady has done it three times. Getting New England in position in the final minute for Adam Vinataeri’s game-winner against St. Louis. Brady did the same thing the following year against Carolina. Brady’s defense held up against vomiting Donovan McNabb for his third ring; and then there were Super Bowl XLIX’s heroics.

– Largest 4th quarter comeback in Super Bowl history
– Brady did that against the No. 1 defense in the NFL (by some metrics)
– the Seahawks defense had given up 13 points in the 4th quarter … over the last eight games
– Brady was a staggering 13-of-15 for 124 yards and two touchdowns with two lengthy scoring drives in the final eight minutes

To take it a step further – the two times Brady lost in the Super Bowl, his defense gave up touchdowns with less than a minute left. There was no way Brady – or Montana, or Peyton, or whomever – was going the length of the field in :57 to score a TD and beat the Giants. In the other loss to the Giants, Brady would have needed to gain about 45 yards in :35 in hopes of sending the game to overtime.

 

[zoostation]

NO

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

Here's another way to compare Brady's and Montana's Super Bowl performances: the quality of the opponents they beat

In 2015, FiveThirtyEight.com released ELO ratings for each of the top 2,047 seasons had by NFL teams ever and subsequently ranked the teams high to low. ELO is a simple benchmark for measuring a team’s performance over the course of an entire season with the average NFL team having an ELO of 1500.

Here are the teams that both Joe Montana and Tom Brady beat in their four Super Bowl wins:

Tom Brady

2001 Rams
ELO Rating 1719
All-Time Rank 55

2003 Panthers
ELO Rating 1576
All-Time Rank 596

2004 Eagles
ELO Rating 1675
All-Time Rank 138

2014 Seahawks
ELO Rating 1749
All-Time Rank 22​

ELO Average: 1,679.75
All-time ELO Rank: 202.75

Joe Montana

1981 Bengals
ELO Rating 1631
All-Time Rank 308

1984 Dolphins
ELO Rating 1727
All-Time Rank 47

1988 Bengals
ELO Rating 1608
All-Time Rank 417


1989 Broncos
ELO Rating 1619
All-Time Rank 361

ELO Average: 1,646.25
All-time ELO Rank: 283.25
​

As you can see, in Montana’s four Super Bowl wins, his 49ers beat up on some sub-par caliber teams. Brady’s victories, while not eye-popping at first, are ones where he beat three top 150 all-time teams, whereas Montana only beat one.

 

[Tony2046]

Super Bowl performances aside, I'd be curious to know how Brady's postseason passing stats compare with Montana's.

The AFC, during Montana's entire playing career, never won a Super Bowl. The outcome of those SBs never seemed in doubt ahead of time. But those NFC titles games were heavyweight matches that often pitted the 2 best teams in the NFL aagainst each other. It might make sense to look at the postseason as a whole.

Montana's




Brady's:






References:

Tom Brady Playoffs Game Log | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Joe Montana Playoffs Game Log | Pro-Football-Reference.com

 

[Beethree]

4 Gold Medals, 2 Silver Medals, vs. 4 Gold medals, 0 silver medals. You can't reward JM for losing earlier in the playoffs. In the 2 Super Bowls Brady lost he drove the team downfield to take the lead late in the game. No contest.

 

[fightingirish595]

There's this unfair thing where the Super Bowl has become such a big thing that if you lose, it's a negative. I don't know why this is. Look at the Vikings, Bills, Elway before he won when he was 0-3. Joe was one of the most clutch players ever. I don't think Brady or Montana number 1 is wrong, but if Brady wins 5 I think it's obvious

Edit: this belief by certain people that losing super bowls is worse for a legacy than going is something that's been around for ever, not something that was invented by Montana lovers though. As for people saying 4-2 is better than 4-0, not so sure I agree with it. I'm not holding 2 losses against Brady but I'm not giving him an edge either. I think it neither helps or hurts him

 

[Rob0729]

I still never understood how people judge a Super Bowl loss as being far worse than not making the Super Bowl at all. The 90s Buffalo Bills are considered a laughing stalk because they lost four straight Super Bowls, but people forget all the teams that absolutely sucked during that time.

 

[Tony2046]

There's this unfair thing where the Super Bowl has become such a big thing that if you lose, it's a negative. I don't know why this is. Look at the Vikings, Bills, Elway before he won when he was 0-3. Joe was one of the most clutch players ever. I don't think Brady or Montana number 1 is wrong, but if Brady wins 5 I think it's obvious

Edit: this belief by certain people that losing super bowls is worse for a legacy than going is something that's been around for ever, not something that was invented by Montana lovers though. As for people saying 4-2 is better than 4-0, not so sure I agree with it. I'm not holding 2 losses against Brady but I'm not giving him an edge either. I think it neither helps or hurts him

I think it's obvious now. Salary cap. More times to the SB. More career wins. Comebacks. Not a dink.

I think Brady is the clear #1.

 

[fightingirish595]

I think it's obvious now. Salary cap. More times to the SB. More career wins. Comebacks. Not a dink.

I think Brady is the clear #1.

That's your opinion and that's fine. I actually agree, just not on the clear part. It's still a team sport. I just don't think more times to a Super Bowl is really an argument. But everything else holds water, just don't forget they played at 2 different times. Imagine if Marino played now

 

[fightingirish595]

I still never understood how people judge a Super Bowl loss as being far worse than not making the Super Bowl at all. The 90s Buffalo Bills are considered a laughing stalk because they lost four straight Super Bowls, but people forget all the teams that absolutely sucked during that time.

I think it's because of how big the Super Bowl got and all that leads up to it. No one remembers the teams that lost the conference championship. But they remember who gets embarrassed in the Super Bowl. And I think the fact that it's one game that it gets blown up

 

[skinnydog]

Brady's 4th quarter against Seattle is rhe greatest 4th quarter performance in the history of the Super Bowl. In the 2 losses Brady drove his team down the field to take the lead with just 2-3 minutes left. Case closed.