Montana vs Brady

[Fball]

Minus the rings Brady his regular season record is far better than Montana's.


I would also add that Brady's has compiled his record playing in the era pf the salary cap whereas the 49'ers of Montana time had no cap and had a roster with far more all pros on it. This can't be ignored.

That sort of negates itself when you look at the quality of some of the teams that SF had to beat to get to the Superbowl at that time. Any one of those Dallas or Giants or whichever teams would likely dominate today.

 

[VJCPatriot]

To be quite honest, does brady really need to win another ring or two to be considered a "better" quarterback than joe montana? Sure brady would be "greater" than montana if he wins 2 more because of his resume (thus becoming most likely number 1 in the greatest of all time debate)... but i believe greatest of all time is not equal to best of all time.

For example, tons of delusional laker fans were claiming if kobe bryant wins 7-8 rings (Which could have been a possibility had they won it last year), he would be > than Michael Jordan because he has more rings.

Let me ask you this, if you watched michael jordan and kobe bryant... watched there playoff performances and more importantly FINALS performances... would you honestly considered kobe bryant as a BETTER player than Michael Jordan? of course not.

Lets apply the same thing to brady/montana. Minus the extra ring that montana has, who is the "better" player? I know rule changes make it difficult to asses this though..

I've watched both play and I'd have to say Jordan is better. There are a few things that Kobe does, that I don't think Jordan could do. But man Jordan just had this ability to take over games, that I don't think even Kobe matches. Plus Jordan had two three-peats. The only respite that the NBA got from him was when he took 1 year off to play baseball.

Kobe can't match that level of dominance and he's always needed help. He won nothing until he got Shaq. And then when Shaq left, he didn't win until the Lakers also got Gasol. Jordan's sidekicks were guys like Pippen, Grant, and Rodman. Those guys were good players but nowhere in the league of HOF talent like Shaq in his prime, and Gasol is a top 3 center in the league right now.

Going back to football. Montana I believe had a stronger supporting cast and he played in an era of no salary cap so it was easier to maintain dynasties. Brady managing 3 in the era of parity in salary cap is a huge accomplishment. And he did more with less surrounding talent around him. BUT history remembers you for results. So I still think he needs 1-2 more rings, but he is well capable of getting them. It's just the defense that might hold him back from accomplishing it. Football is still a team sport even though we give so much credit and glory to the QBs.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

To be quite honest, does brady really need to win another ring or two to be considered a "better" quarterback than joe montana? Sure brady would be "greater" than montana if he wins 2 more because of his resume (thus becoming most likely number 1 in the greatest of all time debate)... but i believe greatest of all time is not equal to best of all time.

For example, tons of delusional laker fans were claiming if kobe bryant wins 7-8 rings (Which could have been a possibility had they won it last year), he would be > than Michael Jordan because he has more rings.

Let me ask you this, if you watched michael jordan and kobe bryant... watched there playoff performances and more importantly FINALS performances... would you honestly considered kobe bryant as a BETTER player than Michael Jordan? of course not.

Lets apply the same thing to brady/montana. Minus the extra ring that montana has, who is the "better" player? I know rule changes make it difficult to asses this though..

I think this has been dealt with at some length from various angles in this very good thread, which I believe you get credit for starting.

The answer to your question in the first sentence seems to be, for most of us, "Yes."

And you are right in your final statement, rule changes across decades and generations make it a difficult assessment. So you are left with things like "Championships Won."

As I said in a post towards the beginning of the thread, for me at least, the Admission Ticket to being considered the GOAT as NFL QB is four titles; Bradshaw, Graham, Montana and Starr have purchased that ticket, IMO, and, of that group, Joe seems to come out on top among people who saw him play, but Starr's claim is given a lot of credence, though, as well.

:deadhorse:

 

[Guts]

Eh people always say Brady has Belichick blah blah blah...Montana had Jerry ******* Rice and Bill Walsh..when Brady got Moss he was 2 minutes away from a perfect season and then got injured and ruined another great Moss year. Brady never had a Wr like Moss or Rice for his Superbowls

 

[BritPat]

I don't think they can be compared. The only thing I will say about both is that they could play in any era.

Joe Cool is the greatest, for me, simply because the tougher the spot, or the harder the game, the better he performed. His Playoff and SB rating will never be matched.

Not that Tommy sucks. But if I could pick any QB in history to win me a game, It would take me about 2 seconds to say "Joe Montana".

 

[BaltimorePatsFan]

Montana and Brady are both great but ESPN told me that Brett Favre is the best ever.

Apparently no one can top his childlike enthusiasm and love for the game.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I'd like to see the Pats win with the offense carrying the defense, as I think that would cement Brady's place as the GOAT. In addition, although we all know SpyGate is baloney, another SB win would be THE ultimate redemption. If Brady doesn't win another one, though, it's still tough to argue he's not the greatest, but there is certainly plenty of arguing you'll hear from other teams' fanbases.

 

[tests]

That sort of negates itself when you look at the quality of some of the teams that SF had to beat to get to the Superbowl at that time. Any one of those Dallas or Giants or whichever teams would likely dominate today.

its ironic you say this, because a similar argument is always used for basketall in the 1980s. The 1980s had "super" teams with the showtime lakers, boston celtics, rockets, pistons etc etc.

I.E., if you put the showtime lakers in todays era, they would likely dominate. Does that mean than that magic johnson is MUCH BETTER than anyone that has played in the past 10 years? it is all about perspective..

 

[tests]

I've watched both play and I'd have to say Jordan is better. There are a few things that Kobe does, that I don't think Jordan could do. But man Jordan just had this ability to take over games, that I don't think even Kobe matches. Plus Jordan had two three-peats. The only respite that the NBA got from him was when he took 1 year off to play baseball.

Kobe can't match that level of dominance and he's always needed help. He won nothing until he got Shaq. And then when Shaq left, he didn't win until the Lakers also got Gasol. Jordan's sidekicks were guys like Pippen, Grant, and Rodman. Those guys were good players but nowhere in the league of HOF talent like Shaq in his prime, and Gasol is a top 3 center in the league right now.

Going back to football. Montana I believe had a stronger supporting cast and he played in an era of no salary cap so it was easier to maintain dynasties. Brady managing 3 in the era of parity in salary cap is a huge accomplishment. And he did more with less surrounding talent around him. BUT history remembers you for results. So I still think he needs 1-2 more rings, but he is well capable of getting them. It's just the defense that might hold him back from accomplishing it. Football is still a team sport even though we give so much credit and glory to the QBs.

Unlike basketball (which is obviously a team sport, but one players (See michael jordan larry bird magic johnson), can literally carry their teams to championships.

Football on the other hand is the ultimate team sport. The reason quarterbacks seem to get the most "glory" or "credit" is because it is probably the most difficult position to play in all of sports... and most teams need a good to great QB to win a SB (obviously you can have exceptions...).

 

[Yehoodi]

I don't think they can be compared. The only thing I will say about both is that they could play in any era.

Joe Cool is the greatest, for me, simply because the tougher the spot, or the harder the game, the better he performed. His Playoff and SB rating will never be matched.

Not that Tommy sucks. But if I could pick any QB in history to win me a game, It would take me about 2 seconds to say "Joe Montana".

make sure you pick the SF 49ers defense and a handful of 1st rounders on offense when you choose Joe cause you likely not make the playoffs or even if you do, you likely be one and done . . .

never saw Joe throw to guys like Gaffney, Caldwell, Patten, etc . . . just saying . . .

 

[Yehoodi]

GOAT can be for any set or subset. It need not be about the Greatest NFL player of all time. If it was, Baugh wouldn't be the choice, anyway.

Rice is considered the GOAT at WR, for example.

ya ya ya ya i get it the Greatest of All Time second string punter returner, i be waiting for ESPN's list , , ,

I understand that can there can be sets and subsets (thank you for you input tho), but when some are talking about brady in a brady v. manning debate or a brady v. montana debate, and GOAT lingo it whipped out one generally is talking about the top of the mountain GOAT, and even if not it is in the ball park . . . which brings me back to my point there is nothing wrong with one indicating that Sammy baugh is the top of the mountain GOAT . . . even if that one maybe misunderstanding that the others are saying GOAT (QB) . . .

and again iput sammy B near the top of my GOAT (overall) list in the NFL if not the top it push came to shove . . . he for the most part changed the game as we know it today, threw a football that was basically a rugby ball, lead the league in many catagoreis in ALL three phases of the game, has two rings, about 5 champioship game appearences, etc etc . . and has a cool nickename too . . . Slingin' Sammy, which in its own should give him overall GOAT status . . . .

 

[Yehoodi]

We are discussing best QB of all time, not best all around player, so Baugh's prowess as a Safety/Punter don't really come into play. Statistically he is very much comparable to Brady and Montana, if you adjust to the period he played in. He just didn't have as much championship success as those two and, therefore, is, in my opinion, below them in the conversation.

As far as old timers go, I'd put Sid Luckman and Otto Graham ahead of Baugh, based on stats and championship victories (obviously, that's all I have to go on, as I didn't watch any of those guys play).

in championship games we have the following:

Baugh been to 5, going 2-3

Montana been to 4, going 4-0

TB been to 4, going 3-1 . . .

so Baugh been to one more championship than both TB/Montana but one less win than TB . . . so not as far behind as one might think, plus he got a cool nickname "Slingin Sammy" which to me is worth 1/2 championship right there

also two of his loses were close a 15-14 lost to cleveland and a 73-0 nail bitter against da Bears . . . well maybe the Bears game wasn't as close as one may think . . . :singing:

 

[tests]

I don't think they can be compared. The only thing I will say about both is that they could play in any era.

Joe Cool is the greatest, for me, simply because the tougher the spot, or the harder the game, the better he performed. His Playoff and SB rating will never be matched.

Not that Tommy sucks. But if I could pick any QB in history to win me a game, It would take me about 2 seconds to say "Joe Montana".

Well, that might be so... but aaron rodgers is off to a fantastic start

 

[RodThePat]

Well, that might be so... but aaron rodgers is off to a fantastic start

Rodgers has played in all of five playoff games. I'd wait a while.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

Montana over Brady right now but, should Brady win another ring, and play well in the big game, he may well take the lead.

Put my vote in for Warren Moon as the best cold weather QB ever.

 

[Deus Irae]

ya ya ya ya i get it the Greatest of All Time second string punter returner, i be waiting for ESPN's list , , ,

I understand that can there can be sets and subsets (thank you for you input tho), but when some are talking about brady in a brady v. manning debate or a brady v. montana debate, and GOAT lingo it whipped out one generally is talking about the top of the mountain GOAT, and even if not it is in the ball park . . . which brings me back to my point there is nothing wrong with one indicating that Sammy baugh is the top of the mountain GOAT . . . even if that one maybe misunderstanding that the others are saying GOAT (QB) . . .

and again iput sammy B near the top of my GOAT (overall) list in the NFL if not the top it push came to shove . . . he for the most part changed the game as we know it today, threw a football that was basically a rugby ball, lead the league in many catagoreis in ALL three phases of the game, has two rings, about 5 champioship game appearences, etc etc . . and has a cool nickename too . . . Slingin' Sammy, which in its own should give him overall GOAT status . . . .

When you're talking Brady v. Montana, you're talking quarterbacks. When you're talking Moss/Rice, you're talking wide receivers. When you're talking Sanders/Brown, you're talking running backs. GOAT conversations in football are almost always about the positions, not an overall player. How do you expect to compare Jim Brown to Lawrence Taylor?

 

[Joker]

How do you expect to compare Jim Brown to Lawrence Taylor?

one liked Hollywood starlets..the other,underage Jersey call girls???

 

[Wides]

A meaningless comparison. The game is very different today, from when Montana played.

 

[Hael]

Brady has better winning % in both the regular season and in the playoffs. So you analysis is way off, selective memory perhaps.

I don't think so. I've always thought Brady was the best QB of his generation, and I definitely think he was better than say Elway, Favre, Manning and Marino. But Montana is different. No offense to Tom, who I think is top 4 or 5, but Montana really was a class apart.

Winning percentage is a bit of biased stat, just like number of superbowls won. At the end of the day, you just have to watch the tape to really see what's being talked about.

I mean I can go over X and Os. I can say that Joe probably has an accuracy and defense reading edge. I can probably say that Brady does the play action better and has a stronger arm, or that Joe had quicker feet and was more elusive. But at the end of the day, they are both ridiculously good, and it comes down small differences.

 

[Fixit]

I think the problem we're running into is our tendency to lose perspective on things as they get further away in our memory, especially stuff from our childhood.

I'm 38 years old. I grew up watching Montana play, and I knew he was something special. He was clutch as Hell, and sometimes he looked like a men among boys. (Sound like someone else we know?)

But Montana also failed...a lot. He wasn't this magical flawless being who rode to games on a griffin, like some here seem to suggest.

One of the biggest reasons it's hard to compare Brady and Montana is the salary cap, something which Brady's been saddled with his whole career, but Montana played most of his without. Before the cap, SF was loaded with talent, and they could pay to keep it. They were a superteam, like Dallas. Don't underestimate the impact the salary cap has. Having no cap enabled a slightly-above average QB like Troy Aikman to become a HOFer, and the only way he should have ever gotten in was if he bought a ticket.

Anyone who thinks that, no matter what Brady accomplishes in the rest of his career, Montana will be better "just because" is fooling themselves.

Either way, they're both ridiculously good.

PS If I hear one more fool say that 4-0 in Superbowls is better than a hypothetical 4-1 I'll f^%$#@! scream. It's incredibly stupid to give Montana credit for losing earlier in the playoffs because it meant he didn't lose in the SB.