OT: Did the Bucs SB loss Break Patrick Mahomes?

[XLIX]

Wow and yet Brady was able to destroy teams and win at a unprecedented pace against these teams with QBs that all had the same advantages that Brady did.

Claiming Brady had an advantage (other than more protection for his health = helping longevity) is the most disingenuous argument you can make on this subject.

You play against peers.

Only a complete moron would ignore the myriad of advantages Montana had, specifically he played in a day and age when you could keep the core of a great team together for years instead of losing them piece by piece to free agency.

Brady's greatness stems in large part from the fact that he was successful at all times in his career with all sorts of supporting casts. Some people are simply too stupid to realize this.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Only a complete moron would ignore the myriad of advantages Montana had, specifically he played in a day and age when you could keep the core of a great team together for years instead of losing them piece by piece to free agency.

Brady's greatness stems in large part from the fact that he was successful at all times in his career with all sorts of supporting casts. Some people are simply too stupid to realize this.

And teams like the 49ers couldn’t sign any free agents either…it cuts both ways. Without Ninkovich, Rodney, and Revis, how many Super Bowls do you suppose Brady would have?

 

[crawhammer]

Fine, he had 2 GW drives in the 4th quarter vs Cincinnati, and in the other SBs he was too busy blowing out Miami and Denver....in fact I don't think Brady ever blew out a SB opponent while he was in NE.

Right, the Patriots didn't win Super Bowls by blowouts, which is how Brady had opportunities to be clutch in ALL 6 SB victories. You're the one supposedly focusing on clutchness but now you're talking about blowouts. Right, Montana played in three noncompetitive Super Bowls. SF was up 20-0 at halftime in SB 16, Montana did next to nothing in the second half, and SF put the game away with FG's. Montana played well SB's 19 & 24 but neither game was competitive and did not require Montana to be clutch, which according to you is what you were originally talking about.

SB Clutchness:

Brady 6
Montana 1

Now you tell me who's more clutch in Super Bowls?

The best defense Brady's ever faced was the 2000s NYG, which was nothing compared to the top defenses of the 80s.

Wrong! The '14 Seahawks were the league's top ranked defense and arguably one of the best defenses in the history of the NFL. The year prior Manning at the height of his powers was made to look foolish by that same defense. And as a matter of fact Brady's first 4 Super Bowls victories came against defenses that were top-10 ranked in both points and yards against.

And teams like the 49ers couldn’t sign any free agents either…it cuts both ways. Without Ninkovich, Rodney, and Revis, how many Super Bowls do you suppose Brady would have?

7

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Right, the Patriots didn't win Super Bowls by blowouts, which is how Brady had opportunities to be clutch in ALL 6 SB victories. You're the one supposedly focusing on clutchness but now you're talking about blowouts. Right, Montana played in three noncompetitive Super Bowls. SF was up 20-0 at halftime in SB 16, Montana did next to nothing in the second half, and SF put the game away with FG's. Montana played well SB's 19 & 24 but neither game was competitive and did not require Montana to be clutch, which according to you is what you were originally talking about.

SB Clutchness:

Brady 6
Montana 1

Now you tell me who's more clutch in Super Bowls?


Wrong! The '14 Seahawks were the league's top ranked defense and arguably one of the best defenses in the history of the NFL. The year prior Manning at the height of his powers was made to look foolish by that same defense. And as a matter of fact Brady's first 4 Super Bowls victories came against defenses that were top-10 ranked in both points and yards against.


7

That's a ridiculous way of looking at clutchness. To determine clutchness in the SB, you have to look at the WHOLE game, examining the good and bad, and ALL the super bowls (wins and losses). I already pointed out the myriad of mistakes Brady made in super bowls that either cost NE the game or could have cost them the game, but here's a refresher:

-SB38: INT in the end zone with 7:40 left to go in the 4th quarter up by 4 points

-SB39: Fumble

-SB46: Intentional grounding in the end zone; INT to Chase Blackburn

-SB49: Two picks in the red zone (one in the end zone)

-SB51: Pick 6 to Robert Alford

-SB52: Strip sack with 2:03 second left in the 4th

Montana had three super bowl blowouts because he was clutch the whole game. I am including his first super bowl against Cincy since the Bengals scored a garbage time TD with 2 seconds left in the 4th to make it look close.

It seems to me that if you are going to laugh at the notion of only scoring 17 points (as TB did before SB 42), then you'd better back it up.

As far as free agency is concerned, Brady would have like 2 super bowls without free agency. There are key free agents on every one of the patriots super bowl winning teams.

 

[crawhammer]

As far as free agency is concerned, Brady would have like 2 super bowls without free agency. There are key free agents on every one of the patriots super bowl winning teams.

Unless you're joking that's f**king ridiculous. Where do you rank Brady on the GOAT list? 14th?

Montana had three super bowl blowouts because he was clutch the whole game.

Clutch
adjective
(in sport) denoting or occurring in a critical situation in which the outcome of a game or competition is at stake.

Critical situation like the 4th quarter with your nuts and the game on the line. 6 times Brady led a 4th quarter game-winning scoring drive with the game tied or trailing in the Super Bowl.

"…the whole game." WTF are you talking about?

 

[Fixit]

Unless you're joking that's f**king ridiculous. Where do you rank Brady on the GOAT list? 14th?


Clutch
adjective
(in sport) denoting or occurring in a critical situation in which the outcome of a game or competition is at stake.

Critical situation like the 4th quarter with your nuts and the game on the line. 6 times Brady led a 4th quarter game-winning scoring drive with the game tied or trailing in the Super Bowl.

"…the whole game." WTF are you talking about?

By his definition, Aaron Rodgers is the greatest clutch QB of all-time. Good gawd.

 

[BobDigital]

No, it comes down to the era that they played in. Montana and Brady have a similar style of play. Both like to throw short passes that wear out a defense, the difference being Montana played in the Wild Wild West era of football where it was ok to hit a QB late or below the knees and where receivers constantly got mugged. Brady played in an era that was designed to protect the QB. Another difference is Montana did not have the benefit of coach-to-coach communications over a headset and did not play in the shotgun, whereas Brady had both advantages. And you can't say for certain that if Brady played in the 80s he'd play longer than Montana. Brady never faced the ferocious defenses of the 80s Giants, Bears, or Redskins. The best defense Brady's ever faced was the 2000s NYG, which was nothing compared to the top defenses of the 80s.

Montana played a more high risk style and leaned on his athleticism and improv/extension more. That along with the era led to more injuries, or he was more injury prone. It wasn't just one or the other. If you were to compare Brady to a QB of the 80s, the closer comp would be Marino, and like Marino his style led to a healthier career. Not that I would argue Montana was particularly super high risk in his style. Not at all, just moderately risky. Elway played a higher risk style and managed to stay healthy. Sometimes luck does play a part, But overall the averages favor staying in the pocket, and giving up on plays when they aren't there instead of extending, for a healthier and longer career.

Also, mentioning there was no coach to coach communication is a non-issue. All the teams were the same in that regard, so it isn't a detriment. As far as the shot gun, again, that was just the style of play. If anything the more you go into this argument the more it favors Brady. As Montana had the advantage of playing in an innovating offensive style the rest of the league would attempt to copy and catch up to. This gave Montana a limited time advantage over his contemporaries that Brady didn't have in his career for any length of time. So frankly, Montana had the edge when it comes to those kind of factors.

 

[venecol]

CLUTCH: The Comeback Kid

 

[Dingleberry]

Since Joe Montana 4-0 in SB is getting someone damp in the panties, I figured it would be worth looking into why Montana only went to 4 SB's. If you don't win the SB, then you lost somewhere. Apparently, Joe's losses are more impressive because they are NOT in the SB. Incredible logic.

Here are the playoff losses that are great losses because they were not in the SB...

1983: 24 - 21 loss to the Redskins. Montana was 27 for 48, 347 yards, 3 TD, 1 INT. Sounds like a good game from Joe! Well, he did nothing for 3 quarters as the Skins lead 21-0 going into the 4th quarter. Against a softer prevent D, the 4th quarter allowed for the yards and points. Perhaps a full comeback was possible if not for the earlier INT. But it was not a SB INT, so it doesn't count.

1985: 17 - 3 loss to the Giants. Montana was 26 for 47, 296 yards, 0 TD, 1 INT. Another one of those pesky non-SB INT's that don't count. 49ers D came to play. Unfortunately, Joe could only muster 3 points. But at least it wasn't a SB loss.

1986: 49 - 3 loss to the Giants. Montana was 8 for 15, 98 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT. Most only remember Joe getting knocked out of the game. What is conveniently forgotten is he was having an epically terrible game before getting knocked senseless. Two more INT's that don't count.

1987: 36 - 24 loss to the Vikings. Montana was 12 for 26, 109 yards, 0 TD, 1 INT. This forgotten loss to the heavy underdog Vikings never gets mentioned. This was Joe's THIRD CONSECUTIVE ONE AND DONE in the playoffs. But at least it's not a SB loss, right? Where did all the 49ers points come from? After Joe was benched!

1990: 15 - 13 loss to the Giants. Montana was 18 for 26, 190 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT. Very pedestrian effort in a winnable game. Got outplayed by Jeff Hostetler.

I won't bother with Montana on the Chiefs. We all know Montana was great. But let's cut the bull shyt that 4-0 and no INT's makes Joe Montana an infallible playoff presence. All 3 of Brady's SB losses are inherently better than any of these playoff losses above because they were in the SB in the first place.

Joe won 4 SB in 16 seasons and went to 4 SB. 25% success rate.

Brady won 7 and went to 10 in 22 seasons. Not doing that math, but both are well above 25%. And those 22 seasons include 2000 and 2008, hardly considered true seasons for Brady.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I came to this thread to make another point (will in a minute,) and I thank you guys for putting away any twit still trying to carry old None-For-The-Thumb Montana's water.

Jesus H. Christmas.

It's ovah.

It goes Brady, Montana, 9 miles of ****, then the argument begins at number 3, at least in the even vaguely modern era. That was already the case when Brady played in NE. Just to put a damn bow on it, he then went to increase the distance between him and Montana by winning 7 (vs. 4) SBs, and doing it with a second team.

The difference was, Brady did not need to have the pond stocked for him at receiver/TE until his 40s. He was making guys like Givens and Patten significant receivers. There is a long list of guys who could ONLY produce playing with Brady.

I'm not part of the "Brady fan" contingent here, who aren't really Patriots fans. But I sure as hell can recognize the obvious, as can every other observer who even watches football: Brady = GOAT. full stop.

By the way, whoever the 9ers fan is claiming there's still an argument... some people wanted Brady to be followed by "Our Steve Young," meaning somebody who was also a HOF QB, which would be great, and good luck, Mac.

But you need to recognize Brady was his own Steve Young. You stack up Young's and Montana's careers, and you get something that would be a closer 2nd place to Brady's.

It's not just over, it's like damn.

Okay next post will be its own thread, I can't make myself try to wrap the next thought into this thread lol.

 

[Dingleberry]

I came to this thread to make another point (will in a minute,) and I thank you guys for putting away any twit still trying to carry old None-For-The-Thumb Montana's water.

Jesus H. Christmas.

It's ovah.

It goes Brady, Montana, 9 miles of ****, then the argument begins at number 3, at least in the even vaguely modern era. That was already the case when Brady played in NE. Just to put a damn bow on it, he then went to increase the distance between him and Montana by winning 7 (vs. 4) SBs, and doing it with a second team.

The difference was, Brady did not need to have the pond stocked for him at receiver/TE until his 40s. He was making guys like Givens and Patten significant receivers. There is a long list of guys who could ONLY produce playing with Brady.

I'm not part of the "Brady fan" contingent here, who aren't really Patriots fans. But I sure as hell can recognize the obvious, as can every other observer who even watches football: Brady = GOAT. full stop.

By the way, whoever the 9ers fan is claiming there's still an argument... some people wanted Brady to be followed by "Our Steve Young," meaning somebody who was also a HOF QB, which would be great, and good luck, Mac.

But you need to recognize Brady was his own Steve Young. You stack up Young's and Montana's careers, and you get something that would be a closer 2nd place to Brady's.

It's not just over, it's like damn.

Okay next post will be its own thread, I can't make myself try to wrap the next thought into this thread lol.

Well put. I will entertain arguments that Montana + Young > Brady.

They would be wrong, but I would at least entertain it.

 

[Wax Frog]

WTF are you babbling about? Are you a mongoloid or what? When have I EVER printed this anywhere? The answer is NEVER you obtuse freakazoid sub-moron. SEEK LIFE ELSWHERE YOU TROLL POS

You need to make sure to use quotes so I can remember who I'm ignoring*

*Or is the show ignored content feature gone?

 

[TommyD4207]

You need to stick to the Queefs, my friend. Brady went one and done in 2009, 2010, and 2019.

Covid infested waters? You do realize there weren't many fans in the stands at Lambeau in 2020 NFC championship, right?

Again, stick to the Queefs...

His point was, Montana **** the bed with a loaded team three straight years, 85-87. This was pre-salary cap and free agency, of course, so those teams were loaded and stayed loaded. Won in 81, pass on 82 the strike year, they were bad, 83 tough loss to Washington on the road (which should never should have been a road game, as a loaded team lost 4 of 5 in November against dogshit teams), won it all in 84, lost to the Bears in 85, a team they should have annihilated like the Dolphins did, they had better weapons (as proven the year before), 86 his fragile ass missed half the year (A couple of actual bums went 5-3-1 in his absence, showing how loaded that team was, and it was Montana's fragility that made Walsh go out and trade for Steve Young), and got stomped by the Giants in a one and done, 87 was another strike year, but they went 10-1 with the starters, 13-2 overall, #1 offense and defense, and got croaked at home by a barely .500 Vikings team. Walsh changed the offense to give Roger Craig 100 more carries than he did in 87 the next two years, and they won it all twice. 90 they lost to the Giants again at Home this time, and they could only put up field goals.

Montana was an excellent QB, but the ONLY reason he got 'GOAT' talk is because he won four Super Bowls. You could argue he was on loaded teams that won without him because he was fragile too. His first year in Kansas City (again, when he was actually on the field) was his best in my mind, because that team was him, Marcus Allen, and a bunch of practice squad guys, if they had practice squads then. The front 7 on defense was very good to excellent, but their secondary was dogshit as well.

I liked Montana. A lot. I liked his clutch gene too, but San Francisco should have been in 6 or 7 Super Bowls instead of just 4. And you can blame a lot of that on the quarterback play, that they weren't.

Bill Walsh *traded* for Steve Young because Montana was fragile, and started him over Montana briefly because he was just better. The analogy would be if Bill Belichick traded for Ben Roethlisberger in Brady's late 20s because he couldn't stay on the field.

 

[TommyD4207]

Well put. I will entertain arguments that Montana + Young > Brady.

They would be wrong, but I would at least entertain it.

This would actually be a fun discussion. There's a reason why Steve Young's in the Hall of Fame, and it's not just because he had the ESPN EZPass to get there.

 

[Dingleberry]

You need to stick to the Queefs, my friend. Brady went one and done in 2009, 2010, and 2019.


I completely missed this gem by Tommy earlier in the thread. Brady had the audacity to go one and done 3 times over 20+ seasons. Let's not mention Joe Cool had 3 one and dones IN A ROW.

Clutch!

 

[TommyD4207]

You need to stick to the Queefs, my friend. Brady went one and done in 2009, 2010, and 2019.


I completely missed this gem by Tommy earlier in the thread. Brady had the audacity to go one and done 3 times over 20+ seasons. Let's not mention Joe Cool had 3 one and dones IN A ROW.

Clutch!

On *loaded* teams. The 84 team won it all and ADDED Jerry Rice in the offseason.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

His point was, Montana **** the bed with a loaded team three straight years, 85-87. This was pre-salary cap and free agency, of course, so those teams were loaded and stayed loaded. Won in 81, pass on 82 the strike year, they were bad, 83 tough loss to Washington on the road (which should never should have been a road game, as a loaded team lost 4 of 5 in November against dogshit teams), won it all in 84, lost to the Bears in 85, a team they should have annihilated like the Dolphins did, they had better weapons (as proven the year before), 86 his fragile ass missed half the year (A couple of actual bums went 5-3-1 in his absence, showing how loaded that team was, and it was Montana's fragility that made Walsh go out and trade for Steve Young), and got stomped by the Giants in a one and done, 87 was another strike year, but they went 10-1 with the starters, 13-2 overall, #1 offense and defense, and got croaked at home by a barely .500 Vikings team. Walsh changed the offense to give Roger Craig 100 more carries than he did in 87 the next two years, and they won it all twice. 90 they lost to the Giants again at Home this time, and they could only put up field goals.

Montana was an excellent QB, but the ONLY reason he got 'GOAT' talk is because he won four Super Bowls. You could argue he was on loaded teams that won without him because he was fragile too. His first year in Kansas City (again, when he was actually on the field) was his best in my mind, because that team was him, Marcus Allen, and a bunch of practice squad guys, if they had practice squads then. The front 7 on defense was very good to excellent, but their secondary was dogshit as well.

I liked Montana. A lot. I liked his clutch gene too, but San Francisco should have been in 6 or 7 Super Bowls instead of just 4. And you can blame a lot of that on the quarterback play, that they weren't.

Bill Walsh *traded* for Steve Young because Montana was fragile, and started him over Montana briefly because he was just better. The analogy would be if Bill Belichick traded for Ben Roethlisberger in Brady's late 20s because he couldn't stay on the field.

Yes and Brady crapped the bed from 2005-2013….btw, those early 49ers teams didn’t have any NFL HOFers besides Montana, fred dean and lott. Rice and Haley didn’t even show up until after their first two Super Bowls. loaded lol

The only reason they didn’t get to more Super Bowls was because of Montana was injury prone. No Alex Guerrero to feel him up and touch his rear. 1989 remains one of the best, if not the best, postseason for a QB in NFL history with Montana having 11 TDs and zero INTs and pure dominance in each playoff game. Not even Brady could touch that.

 

[Guts]

CLUTCH: The Comeback Kid

Dude that page has a lot of gems.

 

[crawhammer]

Yes and Brady crapped the bed from 2005-2013….

Brady won 2 league MVP's during that stretch. He also made 7 pro bowls, had multiple seasons of leading the NFL in passing yards, TD's, passer rating, QBR, etc. He also won more playoff games than he lost. Brady had some outstanding seasons go down the toilet due to underwhelming Patriots defenses.

The only reason they didn’t get to more Super Bowls was because of Montana was injury prone. No Alex Guerrero to feel him up. 1989 remains one of the best, if not the best, postseason for a QB in NFL history with 11 TDs and zero INTs and pure dominance in each playoff game. Not even Brady could touch that

Flacco did that. Overcoming a 28-3 deficit is more impressive, and more clutch, and something never done before (or probably ever again). Brady had game's worth of production (21-26 for 246) in the 4th quarter and OT. Montana never did anything like that. He also never overcame a 10-point deficit in a 4th quarter against an all-time great defense like Brady did in SB 49.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

CLUTCH: The Comeback Kid

Very misleading. Those comebacks were all during the regular season. They were not during the Pats playoff runs.