Montana vs Brady

[Fixit]

Bart Starr was 6'1, 197. He could handle the punishment, I don't see how Brady and Brees would just wilt under the pressure as you're saying.

The s*** people come up with to try to denigrate Brady blows my mind. The fact is he's as tough, competitive, and ruthless as any QB who's ever played, but people want to think he's a sissy because he had an admittedly awful haircut.

I mean...really awful.

 

[pherein]

Bart Starr was 6'1, 197. He could handle the punishment, I don't see how Brady and Brees would just wilt under the pressure as you're saying.

You can't put people in different Era's is what I had always been saying. But, that is what ppl want to do. After Brady wins 4 rings, believe me it will no longer be the Montana discussion, it will be Bart Star. And Im pretty confident Brady will get 4, which is nuts.

 

[robbomango]

The s*** people come up with to try to denigrate Brady blows my mind. The fact is he's as tough, competitive, and ruthless as any QB who's ever played, but people want to think he's a sissy because he had an admittedly awful haircut.

I mean...really awful.

Brady's also hands down the best bad weather QB of all time and that's no stat for a wuss.

 

[RodThePat]

Somewhat premature to anoint Montana best ever. Brady's got a few more years to add to his legacy.

The 21% vs 19% better career rating than the average is a debatable stat given the rules changes favoring the passing game and protecting the QB between Montana's time and now. QB ratings overall are up tremendously - especially yardage, completion percentage and passing TDs. I'm not discarding it, but it doesn't seem entirely valid.

Brady's every bit the clutch performer Montana was. The big losses in the Brady era we all remember had more to do with the offensive line and backs handling pressure than Brady making poor decisions or throws.

We must remember that Brady drove the offense 80 yards down the field on a 5-plus minute drive to take the lead against the Giants 14-10 with 2:42 left. The defense couldn't stop Eli Manning and the Giants on the most bizarre series of plays we've ever seen. Brady was left with 29 seconds after the Giants' TD by Burress. He was clutch that day.

I'm saying Montana is the greatest ever as in right now. I never said nobody would ever top him.

And isn't it valid to argue that it makes it even more impressive that Montana had that kind of production in a time where QB's weren't really protected and receivers could get mugged in plain sight? It isn't like those rough conditions didn't apply to Joe. Today it is far easier to throw the football across the league, Tom Brady is the beneficiary of those pass-favoring rules too. I think adjusting their stats to the relative league average is a pretty fair comparison.

I also never said Brady isn't clutch, just that Montana was too.

 

[Fixit]

Brady's also hands down the best bad weather QB of all time and that's no stat for a wuss.

But...but he plays with space heaters in the pocket!

 

[RodThePat]

Brady's also hands down the best bad weather QB of all time and that's no stat for a wuss.

No argument there. Facing Brady in the snow/cold is almost a death sentence.

 

[Yehoodi]

Brady's also hands down the best bad weather QB of all time and that's no stat for a wuss.

the last time i check my nfl notebook, Bart Starr and Brett Farve played in Green Bay and John Elway played in Denver . . .just saying .. .

 

[RodThePat]

the last time i check my nfl notebook, Bart Starr and Brett Farve played in Green Bay and John Elway played in Denver . . .just saying .. .

Brett Favre and John Elway are a tier below Brady in the greatest QBs of all time discussion.

 

[Fencer]

Brady has had a long stretch of career with awesome clutchness but no particular ability to but up consistently awesome stats, and another stretch with awesome stats but no particular clutchness.

If he ever combines the two, he's the GOAT.

 

[pherein]

the last time i check my nfl notebook, Bart Starr and Brett Farve played in Green Bay and John Elway played in Denver . . .just saying .. .

umm. Star without space and field heaters and comfy gloves,hehe

 

[Yehoodi]

I'm saying Montana is the greatest ever as in right now. I never said nobody would ever top him.

And isn't it valid to argue that it makes it even more impressive that Montana had that kind of production in a time where QB's weren't really protected and receivers could get mugged in plain sight? It isn't like those rough conditions didn't apply to Joe. Today it is far easier to throw the football across the league, Tom Brady is the beneficiary of those pass-favoring rules too. I think adjusting their stats to the relative league average is a pretty fair comparison.

I also never said Brady isn't clutch, just that Montana was too.

i guess you would agree, using your logic, that Bart Starr is better than Montana . . . correct? Starr played in a era which has less rules than Montana, and btw, the rules really have not changed much between TB and Montana, except for the fact of QB protection . . .

btw, i would take Bart Starr over both TB and Montana . . .

 

[RodThePat]

Brady has had a long stretch of career with awesome clutchness but no particular ability to but up consistently awesome stats, and another stretch with awesome stats but no particular clutchness.

If he ever combines the two, he's the GOAT.

I think saying he had a long stretch with a pretty good defense, and not yet complete maturation as a QB, and a long stretch of quarterbacking dominance with sucky defenses, is just as fair.

 

[robbomango]

the last time i check my nfl notebook, Bart Starr and Brett Farve played in Green Bay and John Elway played in Denver . . .just saying .. .

True, maybe it's a different thread "best bad weather QB of all time".

 

[Fixit]

Brett Favre and John Elway are a tier below Brady in the greatest QBs of all time discussion.

I have no idea how Elway's even in the discussion for greatest of all-time. Brady's leaps and bounds ahead of him in every way.

 

[RodThePat]

i guess you would agree, using your logic, that Bart Starr is better than Montana . . . correct? Starr played in a era which has less rules than Montana, and btw, the rules really have not changed much between TB and Montana, except for the fact of QB protection . . .

btw, i would take Bart Starr over both TB and Montana . . .

No, because using that same logic Bart Starr's statistics compared to the league average in his time, are worst than both Brady's and Montana's relative to the league average in their respective times, as I have previously shown. And pre-merger championships have their worth, but I don't consider them of the same importance as Super Bowl wins, that's why I can't see myself putting Starr decisively ahead of Brady and Montana. He is way up there, though.

 

[RodThePat]

I have no idea how Elway's even in the discussion for greatest of all-time. Brady's leaps and bounds ahead of him in every way.

Same Dan Marino myth of "bu..but...he had nothing to work with, the entire team SUCKED, he had to do it all on his own". Which is absolutely not true.

 

[goheels22002]

I'm saying Montana is the greatest ever as in right now. I never said nobody would ever top him.

And isn't it valid to argue that it makes it even more impressive that Montana had that kind of production in a time where QB's weren't really protected and receivers could get mugged in plain sight? It isn't like those rough conditions didn't apply to Joe. Today it is far easier to throw the football across the league, Tom Brady is the beneficiary of those pass-favoring rules too. I think adjusting their stats to the relative league average is a pretty fair comparison.

I also never said Brady isn't clutch, just that Montana was too.

No argument, just thought provoking. Comparing QBs of one's era who really stood out re-inserts guys like Johnny Unitas in the conversation in a major way. If we compare who was the best ever based on passer rating, guys like Sammy Baugh, Dan Fouts and Dan Marino blow the doors off their eras in terms of productivity. I think Brady's stats on many levels do the same but don't necessarily suggest he would be so great in the 1930s or 1960s or even 1970s when receivers got mugged paving the way for a guy like Fran Tarkenton to buy time while his receivers broke free from the DBs.

See this comparison of passers:

http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Coffin_Corner/18-05-670.pdf

 

[pherein]

No argument, just thought provoking. Comparing QBs of one's era who really stood out re-inserts guys like Johnny Unitas in the conversation in a major way. If we compare who was the best ever based on passer rating, guys like Sammy Baugh, Dan Fouts and Dan Marino blow the doors off their eras in terms of productivity. I think Brady's stats on many levels do the same but don't necessarily suggest he would be so great in the 1930s or 1960s or even 1970s when receivers got mugged paving the way for a guy like Fran Tarkenton to buy time while his receivers broke free from the DBs.

See this comparison of passers:

http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Coffin_Corner/18-05-670.pdf

I agree, and think Star's accompaniments have to be respected. I am in no way a GB fan, Im a fan of the game. If Brady beats Star's record, I will support him till I die. I just think its something these guys worked for and deserve . Brady's the only QB I know that has a shot at this, I see this as a positive not a negative. Brady has the possibility of being the best QB ever, others.. even Brees missed that chance.

 

[RodThePat]

No argument, just thought provoking. Comparing QBs of one's era who really stood out re-inserts guys like Johnny Unitas in the conversation in a major way. If we compare who was the best ever based on passer rating, guys like Sammy Baugh, Dan Fouts and Dan Marino blow the doors off their eras in terms of productivity. I think Brady's stats on many levels do the same but don't necessarily suggest he would be so great in the 1930s or 1960s or even 1970s when receivers got mugged paving the way for a guy like Fran Tarkenton to buy time while his receivers broke free from the DBs.

See this comparison of passers:

http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Coffin_Corner/18-05-670.pdf

Fran Tarkenton had a very specific skill set. His rushing ability was a great weapon in his game, and his offenses were different because of it. Kind of like how Steelers WR's are taught never to give up on the play and to keep finding soft spots on the defense even when there are 4 guys draped around Roethlisberger.

And I have no question Brady could air it out just as much as Marino or Fouts did on their day. What skill did those guys have that Brady lacks?

And this article you posted is very interesting, but at the same time, very arbitrary in the value it attributes to certain components to calculate the formula. At the time, I'm trying to calculate where Brady would stand on that list if we consider his career numbers. I should have his results shortly.

 

[robbomango]

Weren't they using Stickum and all kinds of adhesives up until 1981

And for all the tough guy QBs of the old days, they played 12 games up until 1969 and 14 until 1977 2-4 games is a lot more, regardless of QB protection rules.

Could Bart Star take hit after hit for 16 weeks from some of these "Roid Heads"

they should rename the era before 1977 "the pansy era" jk