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:
In that order.....
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.
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.
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 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.