PDA

View Full Version : ESPN is actually comparig Tom Brady to Joe Montana....



Eliscruzzz
01-14-2013, 08:31 PM
I find this debate laughable the fact that Brady hasn't beaten us twice and for the fact they haven't won since spygate.Don't get me wrong he is great but Joe Montana stands alone in the post season.

Eliscruzzz
01-14-2013, 08:40 PM
Plus Joe's competition in the 80's was brutal. Who did Brady have to beat?? Are they even still in the league besides Peyton??

primetime
01-15-2013, 01:50 AM
ESPN is all about making comparisons, it’s what they do and what gets attention from fans. But saying that I think it’s not that farfetched. The NFL was a different game when Joe played, rule changes have done that. But it’s still the NFL and the best players play in this league. In my opinion Joe Montana was the best qb ever; they didn't call him Joe cool for nothing. Watching him play in the super bowls was like watching someone play catch in the back yard, nothing fazed him. Joe Montana is the only player to be named Super Bowl MVP 3 times, so when it comes to winning the bar is set at Joe Montana.

Now to Tom Brady, he plays very similar to Montana, has great accuracy, pocket presence, and he wins.. Except against us (Giants) Tom Brady could retire today and would easily be in the conversation as a top 5 qb all time. It seems every year the Patriots are in the hunt in the playoffs, and a big part of that is because of Tom Brady. Everyone is so amazed by how good that offense is, no matter who they plug in at skilled positions. But it all starts and ends with Tom Brady. So in conclusion I think it’s a fair comparison...

BuffyBlueII
01-15-2013, 02:41 AM
I think it is a very fair comparision.

I grew up watching Joe Montana play and I watch Tom Brady play. I think Tom Brady is better. Tom Brady is the best QB I have ever seen.

SweetZombieJesus
01-15-2013, 08:05 AM
You can see why they do it. Only Montana and Bradshaw have won 4 SBs and Bradshaw was not a QB god. There are very few people you can compare Brady to.

They're also among the only 5 QBs to win multiple SB MVP awards. A list that also includes Eli.

Ntegrase96
01-15-2013, 10:57 AM
Seems fair to me.

In fact, I think if Brady wins it this year then it may be hard to make a case for Joe other than he never lost a superbowl.

GMEN86900711
01-15-2013, 12:11 PM
It seems every year the Patriots are in the hunt in the playoffs, and a big part of that is because of Tom Brady. Everyone is so amazed by how good that offense is, no matter who they plug in at skilled positions. But it all starts and ends with Tom Brady. So in conclusion I think it’s a fair comparison...

I agree that it is a fair comparison, but I also think the division and the system are a big part of it.

In 2008, the Patriots went 11-5 with Matt Cassel at the helm. How many times has Eli Manning won 11 games or more? Only twice by my recollection. This isn't to compare Eli to Brady, but Matt fricken Cassel managed 11 wins in that division and offensive scheme.

And every single year the Patriots are better than the Dolphins, Bills, and Jets. What does that say really?

TCHOF
01-15-2013, 12:21 PM
It's a fair comparison.

If you remember, Montana was on the receiving end of a few bad playoff losses to the Giants too.

TroyArcher
01-15-2013, 12:24 PM
I find this debate laughable the fact that Brady hasn't beaten us twice and for the fact they haven't won since spygate.Don't get me wrong he is great but Joe Montana stands alone in the post season.

Brady is better

Ntegrase96
01-15-2013, 12:39 PM
I agree that it is a fair comparison, but I also think the division and the system are a big part of it.

In 2008, the Patriots went 11-5 with Matt Cassel at the helm. How many times has Eli Manning won 11 games or more? Only twice by my recollection. This isn't to compare Eli to Brady, but Matt fricken Cassel managed 11 wins in that division and offensive scheme.

And every single year the Patriots are better than the Dolphins, Bills, and Jets. What does that say really?


NE has a great system going but divisional rivals are still divisional rivals-- they're still pros and you have to play them twice a year. Throw divisional games out the window... Carolina beat Atlanta this year. The Eagles beat the Giants and so on and so forth.

I see your point because I've been on that side of things... I was very jealous of the Pats schedule. But an average team like Dallas went 2-2 in the AFCE last year, and beat Miami on a last second FG.

You still have to be good to win in the AFCE and you also have to take care of business, which is difficult to do with all the parity in the league.

When I really thought about it, I realized I was holding the Pats accountable for being better than everyone in their division-- needless to say that's pretty silly.

Besides, it's not like they fold in the playoffs when the competition increases.

Toadofsteel
01-15-2013, 01:25 PM
I agree that it is a fair comparison, but I also think the division and the system are a big part of it.

In 2008, the Patriots went 11-5 with Matt Cassel at the helm. How many times has Eli Manning won 11 games or more? Only twice by my recollection. This isn't to compare Eli to Brady, but Matt fricken Cassel managed 11 wins in that division and offensive scheme.

This is my argument. I think by giving Brady so much credit you're taking away from what Belicheck does. Tom Brady is still a great player worthy of top 5 all time consideration, but having Belicheck to back him up helps tremendously. Just like Eli is boosted by having TC to back him up. Every coach brought up in the Parcells regime knows how to make do with what he has. Missing the playoffs at 11-5 is just a fluke, plain and simple. If the Dolphins weren't so good in 2008 and the Patriots had gone to the playoffs that year, Cassel could have led that team to a Super Bowl victory, just like Hostetler did for us when Simms got hurt.

TroyArcher
01-15-2013, 05:42 PM
Plus Joe's competition in the 80's was brutal. Who did Brady have to beat?? Are they even still in the league besides Peyton??

Good point but I would argue the 49ers teams of Joe Montana were much better all around teams that Brady has had. I bet they have way more HOFers.

Cool Papa B.
01-15-2013, 06:18 PM
It's not an outragious comparison. I think Montana is better though.

Besides toughness, being clutch and some important stats, at the end of the day I ask if I had to win a game- a game where my life depends on it- who would you have as your QB For me it's:

1)Unitas
2)Montana
3)Elway

In that order.....

Eliscruzzz
01-15-2013, 07:06 PM
NE has a great system going but divisional rivals are still divisional rivals-- they're still pros and you have to play them twice a year. Throw divisional games out the window... Carolina beat Atlanta this year. The Eagles beat the Giants and so on and so forth.

I see your point because I've been on that side of things... I was very jealous of the Pats schedule. But an average team like Dallas went 2-2 in the AFCE last year, and beat Miami on a last second FG.

You still have to be good to win in the AFCE and you also have to take care of business, which is difficult to do with all the parity in the league.

When I really thought about it, I realized I was holding the Pats accountable for being better than everyone in their division-- needless to say that's pretty silly.

Besides, it's not like they fold in the playoffs when the competition increases.really... they folded what the last 4 years when the competition heats up.

sharick88
01-15-2013, 07:37 PM
Seems pretty fair to me. I think some Giants fans are blinded by the fact that we beat Brady's patriots in the SB twice. He still won 3 of them and has made it to 5. He's easily one of the best QB's to ever play.

Eliscruzzz
01-15-2013, 07:47 PM
Seems pretty fair to me. I think some Giants fans are blinded by the fact that we beat Brady's patriots in the SB twice. He still won 3 of them and has made it to 5. He's easily one of the best QB's to ever play.Yeah your right I was just getting sick of the Brady praise lol. He is definitely top 5 all time, I still have Joe ahead though, losing sb doesn't count. Jim kelly never got credit for making it to the sb 4 years in a row.

TheBookOfEli
01-16-2013, 01:48 AM
If Brady wins the Superbowl this year, he is the consensus G.O.A.T

Sure Montana had tougher competition but look the guy had the best football player of all time to throw too and he also had amazing defenses. He also had a great running game.

Brady is the best QB in the league and there is no denying it and will go down IMO the best of all time.

giantyankee1976
01-16-2013, 07:19 AM
a San Francisco Newspaper actually started that debate (saw it on NFLN Around the League)

both went to Michigan also.

what I hate is that the AFCE is weak as brittle glass. the Patriots are 20 times the best team than any other in that Div.

never the less Tom is a good QB, if the Ravens get after him and put him on his back a few times, he has a tendency to get pedestrian...some of us Giants fans know that well. :)

TCHOF
01-16-2013, 07:30 AM
a San Francisco Newspaper actually started that debate (saw it on NFLN Around the League)

both went to Michigan also.

what I hate is that the AFCE is weak as brittle glass. the Patriots are 20 times the best team than any other in that Div.

never the less Tom is a good QB, if the Ravens get after him and put him on his back a few times, he has a tendency to get pedestrian...some of us Giants fans know that well. :)

Montana went to ND

EliDaMANning
01-16-2013, 11:02 AM
Montana and Brady have one thing in common. They both played in excellent systems and great players. Montana's teams were LOADED. He is blessed to have played on that team, put Marino on it and he becomes the undisputed GOAT and Montana would've been an afterthought.

njg85m
01-16-2013, 11:28 AM
You really think the comparison is that crazy? I sure don't.

Ntegrase96
01-16-2013, 11:33 AM
really... they folded what the last 4 years when the competition heats up.

Sometimes I think you like to argue for the sake of arguing

BuffyBlueII
01-16-2013, 01:44 PM
I agree that it is a fair comparison, but I also think the division and the system are a big part of it.

In 2008, the Patriots went 11-5 with Matt Cassel at the helm. How many times has Eli Manning won 11 games or more? Only twice by my recollection. This isn't to compare Eli to Brady, but Matt fricken Cassel managed 11 wins in that division and offensive scheme.

And every single year the Patriots are better than the Dolphins, Bills, and Jets. What does that say really?

They went 11-5 with Matt Cassel the year after they went 16-0 during the regular season with Tom Brady. That is a huge drop off and helps illustrate how great Tom Brady is.

BuffyBlueII
01-16-2013, 01:47 PM
Yeah your right I was just getting sick of the Brady praise lol. He is definitely top 5 all time, I still have Joe ahead though, losing sb doesn't count. Jim kelly never got credit for making it to the sb 4 years in a row.

Of course he did. Jim Kelly went to HOF on the 1st time ballot. Jim Kelly was an awesome QB.

dakotajoe
01-16-2013, 04:17 PM
Brady will be considered better than Montana by the time his career is over.

BuffyBlueII
01-16-2013, 04:37 PM
Brady will be considered better than Montana by the time his career is over.

I already consider him better than Joe Montana.

greenca190
01-16-2013, 06:01 PM
ESPN is all about making comparisons, it’s what they do and what gets attention from fans. But saying that I think it’s not that farfetched. The NFL was a different game when Joe played, rule changes have done that. But it’s still the NFL and the best players play in this league. In my opinion Joe Montana was the best qb ever; they didn't call him Joe cool for nothing. Watching him play in the super bowls was like watching someone play catch in the back yard, nothing fazed him. Joe Montana is the only player to be named Super Bowl MVP 3 times, so when it comes to winning the bar is set at Joe Montana.

Now to Tom Brady, he plays very similar to Montana, has great accuracy, pocket presence, and he wins.. Except against us (Giants) Tom Brady could retire today and would easily be in the conversation as a top 5 qb all time. It seems every year the Patriots are in the hunt in the playoffs, and a big part of that is because of Tom Brady. Everyone is so amazed by how good that offense is, no matter who they plug in at skilled positions. But it all starts and ends with Tom Brady. So in conclusion I think it’s a fair comparison...

It seems theyre in the hunt for playoffs every year? I'm pretty sure they only missed the playoffs once while Brady was actually starting (not counting the year with Cassel)

Die-Hard
01-16-2013, 07:01 PM
Its an extremely fair comparison. Brady is an outstanding QB and one of the rare greats. He's not quite as good under pressure as Joe was, but he's still very much up there with him as far as overall QB talent. The comparison is valid IMO.

LT Stands For Greatness
01-17-2013, 12:43 AM
a San Francisco Newspaper actually started that debate (saw it on NFLN Around the League)

both went to Michigan also.

what I hate is that the AFCE is weak as brittle glass. the Patriots are 20 times the best team than any other in that Div.

never the less Tom is a good QB, if the Ravens get after him and put him on his back a few times, he has a tendency to get pedestrian...some of us Giants fans know that well. :)

Joe went to Notre Dame. Remember Joe caught a little crap about an interview recently about Daniel Reutteger, the man about whom the movie "Rudy" was written. Joe was on the team as a QB then (don't recall if Joe was starter or a 2nd string player then).

Back in the 80's, the NFC West wasn't so great either. Remember, you had the L.A. Rams, New Orleans Saints and Atlanta Falcons in that division. Those teams weren't so great. The Rams were 2nd best in that division with 7 trips to the playoffs. in that decade. 0-2 in the NFC conference game. The Patriots are in a similar situation, like you inferred. Bills are not good. Dolphins are not good and the Jets.....well....the circus has yet to leave town. Joe Montana was Brady's favorite player growing up, so Brady did emulate him. They are very similar in nature. Both QBs have a difficult time when they are pressured. The Giants of '86 and '90 proved that, KO'ing Joe in both post season games. While, the Giants of '07 and '11 did not KO Tom Brady, they did pressure Brady to the point where he could not function the way he normally does. Much like Joe when he got hit. When Jim Burt nailed him in the NFC Divisional round and LT picked off Montana and scored, I thought Burt killed Joe. He nailed him and he went flying, curled in a fetal position and did not move. So there are similarities. While Joe Montana was a great QB, I would probably want someone like Brady under center for my team, just because he is a little bit more durable than Montana....especially if you are facing a defense like the Giants in the 80s. Yes, Brady did miss the entire 2008 season due to an injury. But then again, if you put Brady in the 80s, and he faced our D back then, he'd probably end up with a short career. I don't know. Both QBs are great. It is a tough comparison. Enjoy the remainder of the NFL season gang!

shocknaweny
01-17-2013, 03:35 PM
as well they should ....Brady just passed Montana on the for most career postseason wins and Brady never had the likes of Jerry Rice , Roger Craig and a Charles Haley type of passrusher on the D' too....plus 50 touchdowns in a single season....if Brady gets another SB ring he"s got Joe beat for sure

BuffyBlueII
01-17-2013, 04:47 PM
really... they folded what the last 4 years when the competition heats up.

They lost 2 very close SuperBowls over the last 5 years, hardly folding. They got blown out by Baltimore Ravens in playoffs a few years ago and beside that, there is not much anyone can really say about Tom Brady. The guy has had maybe 5 bad games in the last 5 years. Heck, Eli had more than 5 bad games this past season alone.

Tom Brady in my opinion, is The Greatest QB of all time. Joe Montana and Bart Starr are the only other 2 that I think should even be in the conversation. Granted, Terry Bradshaw was 4-0 in SuperBowls but he wasn't the QB that Tom Brady is. Peyton Manning is awesome in the regular season but the postseason is what separates he and Tom.

I think the entire SpyGate hoopla is way overblown. The very fact that NE Patriots went 16-0 during 2007 regular season and have been back to SuperBowl 2 times since SpyGate, proves it didn't really help them that much.

I think Tom Brady will play for 4-5 more years and probably win another SuperBowl or 2.

TroyArcher
01-18-2013, 12:40 PM
They lost 2 very close SuperBowls over the last 5 years, hardly folding. They got blown out by Baltimore Ravens in playoffs a few years ago and beside that, there is not much anyone can really say about Tom Brady. The guy has had maybe 5 bad games in the last 5 years. Heck, Eli had more than 5 bad games this past season alone.

Tom Brady in my opinion, is The Greatest QB of all time. Joe Montana and Bart Starr are the only other 2 that I think should even be in the conversation. Granted, Terry Bradshaw was 4-0 in SuperBowls but he wasn't the QB that Tom Brady is. Peyton Manning is awesome in the regular season but the postseason is what separates he and Tom.

I think the entire SpyGate hoopla is way overblown. The very fact that NE Patriots went 16-0 during 2007 regular season and have been back to SuperBowl 2 times since SpyGate, proves it didn't really help them that much.

I think Tom Brady will play for 4-5 more years and probably win another SuperBowl or 2.

Bart Starr, are you kidding? Top 10 maybe but definitely not in the Top 5.

BuffyBlueII
01-18-2013, 02:30 PM
Bart Starr, are you kidding? Top 10 maybe but definitely not in the Top 5.

You have to be kidding if you don’t rate Bart Starr up there near the top. The guy won 5 NFL Championships and is the second highest post season passer ever. The guy was a pure winner.

TroyArcher
01-18-2013, 06:00 PM
You have to be kidding if you don’t rate Bart Starr up there near the top. The guy won 5 NFL Championships and is the second highest post season passer ever. The guy was a pure winner.

He played on a team with a dominant running team with a great defense. Go check the stats and get back to me. Unitas, Brady, Montana, Elway, Manning, Marino just to name 6.

BuffyBlueII
01-18-2013, 06:10 PM
He played on a team with a dominant running team with a great defense. Go check the stats and get back to me. Unitas, Brady, Montana, Elway, Manning, Marino just to name 6.

I know the statistics.

Bart Starr had ice water in his veins in the post season and he led his team to more NFL Championships than any other QB.

GentleGiant
01-18-2013, 08:19 PM
I know the statistics. Bart Starr had ice water in his veins in the post season and he led his team to more NFL Championships than any other QB. championships that were 50 times easier to win than SBs. You really gonna say the packers have 13 Super Bowls? They count but they're more a quarter of a Sb.

GentleGiant
01-18-2013, 08:23 PM
I love how people use (Brady plays in bad division) argument. And Montana didn't? He played the saints and cards. At least the jets and dolphins were sometimes good. Montana's division was never good.

BuffyBlueII
01-18-2013, 09:08 PM
championships that were 50 times easier to win than SBs. You really gonna say the packers have 13 Super Bowls? They count but they're more a quarter of a Sb.

They were still the top Championship at the time. Some would argue they are easier to win now.

ELI_HOF_NYG
01-19-2013, 12:25 AM
hard to argue the comparison,,,as much as i hate brady he is the teets.

SweetZombieJesus
01-19-2013, 12:42 PM
championships that were 50 times easier to win than SBs. You really gonna say the packers have 13 Super Bowls? They count but they're more a quarter of a Sb.

Really, 50 times easier? You didn't have 1/3 of the league making the playoffs back then, and no neutral site warm weather carpeted dome BS. Just two teams even qualified -- and an extra round in the late 60s as they moved towards the Super Bowl.

In today's championships you've got more rounds to survive but you also have a much greater chance of getting into the tournament and the championship itself is played in air conditioned comfort not in the harsh cold elements with a frozen field.

Are you a Yankee fan by some chance? You know it was the same way in baseball (one team in each league won the Pennant and they played in the WS, there was no LCS) until 1969, right? So all those World Series before 1977 only count for a quarter of a World Series, right?

GentleGiant
01-19-2013, 01:18 PM
I know the statistics. Bart Starr had ice water in his veins in the post season and he led his team to more NFL Championships than any other QB.
Really, 50 times easier? You didn't have 1/3 of the league making the playoffs back then, and no neutral site warm weather carpeted dome BS. Just two teams even qualified -- and an extra round in the late 60s as they moved towards the Super Bowl.In today's championships you've got more rounds to survive but you also have a much greater chance of getting into the tournament and the championship itself is played in air conditioned comfort not in the harsh cold elements with a frozen field.Are you a Yankee fan by some chance? You know it was the same way in baseball (one team in each league won the Pennant and they played in the WS, there was no LCS) until 1969, right? So all those World Series before 1977 only count for a quarter of a World Series, right? You're kidding right? Doesn't matter how many teams got in the playoffs. There was still only 1/3 of the current league actually competing in the regular season so the same teams will get in because your record doesnt matter. Not to mention smaller schedules.Also there were no overtimes. If it was a tie in a game it ended that way. The packers won a championship with a 7-1-6 record. Only 7 wins but they still qualified. Babysitting system. Who cares what the conditions were? R u kidding? That's all you got? The weather? Give me a break. Not to mention that players nowadays r more talented than those of old. They're not gonna be affected by weather. The weather was not suddenly worse because it helps your argument. "So all those World Series matches don't matter as much?" YES! Take off the homer Yankee glasses! The packers do not have 13 SBs. Old championships should be separated from new ones if one was easier. No matter the sport. They count but barely as much. Might as be NFC championships or division titles.

GentleGiant
01-19-2013, 01:28 PM
They were still the top Championship at the time. Some would argue they are easier to win now. And "some" would be idiots. Give me a break. Smaller schedules. No over times. Less talented players. Simpler teams. Less teams.The packers qualified for a championship with a 7-1-6. And your telling me it was harder back cause your in bed with Bart Starr?? The championships count but so do NFC championships and division title.

BuffyBlueII
01-19-2013, 01:37 PM
And "some" would be idiots. Give me a break. Smaller schedules. No over times. Less talented players. Simpler teams. Less teams.The packers qualified for a championship with a 7-1-6. And your telling me it was harder back cause your in bed with Bart Starr?? The championships count but so do NFC championships and division title.

No, I am not telling you that. I put up a question in response to a question. You seem to be babbling nonsense because apparently someone struck a nerve. Next you are going to state that Ahmad Bradshaw is a better RB than Jim Brown ever was because he plays a 16 game schedule.

It is amazing how every generation there is a complaint about “the rules have made the game easier, you can’t hit now” or “they were all small and not talented back then” or “there schedules were smaller” etc......etc...... excuses. excuses. excuses. NFL Championships are NFL Championships and the way someone performs in those games are what matters.

GentleGiant
01-19-2013, 02:12 PM
No, I am not telling you that. I put up a question in response to a question. You seem to be babbling nonsense because apparently someone struck a nerve. Next you are going to state that Ahmad Bradshaw is a better RB than Jim Brown ever was because he plays a 16 game schedule.It is amazing how every generation there is a complaint about “the rules have made the game easier, you can’t hit now” or “they were all small and not talented back then” or “there schedules were smaller” etc......etc...... excuses. excuses. excuses. NFL Championships are NFL Championships and the way someone performs in those games are what matters. It's amazing how many how old farts think that a league that didn't understand the forward pass somehow competes now. Excuse me sir the Sb hasn't been around for 10 years. People could harder in the 70s and 80s. And we're not talking about talent or Jim brown. We're talking about the fact you think that Bart Starr having 5 somehow puts him with joe Montana despite Starr being nothing being more than a game manager playing a weak league. Old farts and packet fans shy away from reality and call them excuses. Schedules do mean something cause shockingly enough 16 games is harder than 12. Also there's nothing more frustrating than guy living in the past.

BuffyBlueII
01-19-2013, 02:20 PM
It's amazing how many how old farts think that a league that didn't understand the forward pass somehow competes now. Excuse me sir the Sb hasn't been around for 10 years. People could harder in the 70s and 80s. And we're not talking about talent or Jim brown. We're talking about the fact you think that Bart Starr having 5 somehow puts him with joe Montana despite Starr being nothing being more than a game manager playing a weak league. Old farts and packet fans shy away from reality and call them excuses. Schedules do mean something cause shockingly enough 16 games is harder than 12. Also there's nothing more frustrating than guy living in the past.

Kind of funny that you keep harping on “old farts” but you keep making the comparisons between the differences in the games and then get huffy when you are proven wrong.

Using your logic. How long ago did Joe Montana play?

“Old farts” and “Packers fans” are obviously not the only ones that bring up Bart Starr in the conversation since I am neither. Nice try on your part however.

GentleGiant
01-19-2013, 05:14 PM
Kind of funny that you keep harping on “old farts” but you keep making the comparisons between the differences in the games and then get huffy when you are proven wrong. Using your logic. How long ago did Joe Montana play?“Old farts” and “Packers fans” are obviously not the only ones that bring up Bart Starr in the conversation since I am neither. Nice try on your part however. I haven't been proven wrong. All you've done is insult me from the get go. You're little "excuses, excuses" point isn't a rebuttal. It's just u sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalala. And by your logic someone who lived the 80s with joe Montana is somehow an old fart(30 years old). "Since I am neither". Ok then you're just misguided which is worse than an old fart since you think a game manager is one the best ever just because he got the most easiest rings ever.

BuffyBlueII
01-19-2013, 05:59 PM
I haven't been proven wrong. All you've done is insult me from the get go. You're little "excuses, excuses" point isn't a rebuttal. It's just u sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalala. And by your logic someone who lived the 80s with joe Montana is somehow an old fart(30 years old). "Since I am neither". Ok then you're just misguided which is worse than an old fart since you think a game manager is one the best ever just because he got the most easiest rings ever.

Never stated that you were an “old fart.” You have been insulting since your first response. However, your attempt at a point in regard to folks playing years ago also pertains to Joe Montana. If you want to go on about how the game has changed and this is harder now and athletes are better now, etc.....etc...... then why would it just pertain to folks from the 60 but not the 80s? I am not saying that I agree with that but it is your own perception that you discount and ignore when it doesn’t fit your argument and is used to prove you wrong.

Your comment that Bart Starr, a QB that led his team to 5 NFL Championships and a guy that is a 2 time SuperBowl MVP, is a game manager shows just how little you know about football.

Roosevelt
01-20-2013, 01:50 AM
Joe Montana > Brady.

Rusty192
01-20-2013, 01:57 AM
Joe Montana > Brady.Agreed.

BuffyBlueII
01-20-2013, 04:19 AM
Joe Montana > Brady.

No he is not.

Tom Brady is a better QB than Joe Montana ever was.

Rat_bastich
01-20-2013, 04:45 AM
No he is not.

Tom Brady is a better QB than Joe Montana ever was.

No because Tom Brady went to Michigan and Montana went to Notre Dame. We know Notre Dame is better. However, Joe Montana wearing Skechers does hurt his credibility.

But, for real. Joe was good in his era and Brady is good in his. The era's are different, the players nowadays are smarter, bigger and faster. But, then again in Montana's era they hit harder and were able to smash the quarterback. To survive and play in any of the eras...including the old fart era...still took/takes skill. Comparing era's and players is definitely a pointless pursuit. That is my middle of the road view.

BuffyBlueII
01-20-2013, 05:38 AM
No because Tom Brady went to Michigan and Montana went to Notre Dame. We know Notre Dame is better. However, Joe Montana wearing Skechers does hurt his credibility.

But, for real. Joe was good in his era and Brady is good in his. The era's are different, the players nowadays are smarter, bigger and faster. But, then again in Montana's era they hit harder and were able to smash the quarterback. To survive and play in any of the eras...including the old fart era...still took/takes skill. Comparing era's and players is definitely a pointless pursuit. That is my middle of the road view.

I agree that the “era” argument makes no sense. It is ridiculous when folks harp on it because in the 80s, the old timers were claiming that they hit so much harder in the 70s and in the 70s the old timers were claiming they hist so much harder in the 60s, etc.......etc..............

Delicreep
01-20-2013, 05:19 PM
Joe Montana > Brady.

I agree, and I almost feel at this point that I don't need to argue it--more SB wins and more MVP's--it just is.

Brady wins a 4th SB and it has to be a discussion at least.

Flip Empty
01-20-2013, 06:29 PM
Brady is certainly the best quarterback of his generation; it's hard to come up with an argument to say otherwise.

Rusty192
01-21-2013, 12:28 AM
Brady is certainly the best quarterback of his generation; it's hard to come up with an argument to say otherwise.Except for my main man Aaron Rodgaaaahhhhs!

ELI_HOF_NYG
01-21-2013, 01:29 AM
brady has earned that honor and has done with much less over the years.

JJC7301
01-21-2013, 01:42 AM
There's nothing laughable at all. You can compare Brady with the other top 5 QB's in the history of the league. He's a legend.

ELI_HOF_NYG
01-21-2013, 02:00 AM
There's nothing laughable at all. You can compare Brady with the other top 5 QB's in the history of the league. He's a legend.

and we beat him twice in the super bowl,,one of the victories spoiling a perfect season,,cue the dr.evil laugh.

frantlj
01-21-2013, 02:45 AM
And Tom Brady did not look too good tonight........

Flip Empty
01-21-2013, 08:32 AM
brady has earned that honor and has done with much less over the years.
This is the odd thing, Brady found more success with a stripped back offense.
The team is unbalanced. Brady doesn't need every weapon under the sun, he needs a defense so the pressure isn't all on him. Brees is in this same position (46 touchdowns yet only a 7-9 record?) and Rodgers is, too.