Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Brady vs. Montana - who is greater all-time? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Ghost Rider
- Start date
Delhomme had one hell of a Super Bowl : 323-3-0, 9.79 YPA
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Rookie_Whisperer
Footballguy
And that article also found a way to rate Kurt Warner higher than Brady at the same time. Call me a skeptic of the formula that derived that outcome.....
Niles Standish
Footballguy
Well it's a really weird rating. A Super Bowl is worth 205 regular season games. Dan Marino started 240. So a single game is worth more than 80% of Marino's regular season career. And he played a long time.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Obviously the answer here is that Eli captained good offenses where great defenses were the heart of the team.
Montana was the heart of great offenses that changed the way football was and is played. Montana defeated John Elway, Ken, Anderson, Boomer Esiason and Dan Marino.
Brady desrves all the accolades he gets, but the first 3 Pats wins were captaining teams with good offenses led by great defenses. Defeating Warner, Delhomme and McNabb was not quite on the same level as what Montana did. The best win was probably that first one vs the Rams and that has to be credited to the defense, which did to the GSOT what the Giants defense did to the Pats in 2007.
There is something to be said for Brady getting to 6 SBs vs Montana's 4, but something I think interesting about both these guys is how they played in really weak divisions. There were exceptions, the L.A. Rams were a rival and the Saints rose up against the 9ers a couple times but they got smacked down. The Pats have really been unchallenged, except for maybe the Jets for a short stretch. This allowed these teams to have maximal chances at the playoffs and often HFA allowing them to get to the SB.
Last edited by a moderator:
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
Because he was in a run first offense. IMO Aikman would have put up monster numbers if asked to. One of, if not the most accurate passers ever.
Last edited by a moderator:
Road Warriors
Footballguy
I'm not disagreeing with this, but we forget how good the SF defense was.
In '81, they had the 7th ranked scoring offense and the 2nd ranked defense.
'84 - 2nd ranked offense, 1st ranked def.
'88 - 7th / 8th
'89 - 1st / 3rd
81 would be much closer to a good offense led by a great defense, History has a way of shifting our perception.
The other 3 years were balanced, with '89 being arguably led by offense.
For comparison, NE off/def rankings from the SB wins
'01 - 6/6
'03 - 12/1
'04 - 4/2
'14 - 4/8
The only significant team gap was the '03 team that would fit that description. The '01 and '04 teams were balanced and the '14 team was led by the offense.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
12punch
Footballguy
this reminds of that other guy's post, earlieryou guys don't even know that by the 80s qb had stopped playing both ways.
montana didn't defeat those qb --- the niners incredible defense did.
I wasn't going to bother reposting all that stuff that's already been posted in the other thread but if it really has to be done.............
now, what were you saying about captaining teams led by great defenses.............?
wonder how many sb wins brady would have with a defense routinely holding teams to single digits.
the fact that montana played on a team with a defense that could actually stifle all these great qb is not quite the point for montana that you guys seem to think it is.
and your tired bit about the afce being a weak division has already been debunked several times in other threads, troll --- you'll have to look it up yourself, though.
I'm not reposting half the board in here
I'll admit you were dead on about the niners' ####ty division, though --- here's the payroll of all nfl teams from 1990
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
I like how 12punch is keeping up the good fight and still posting despite the overwhelming consensus that he's a meandering boob.
Niles Standish
Footballguy
You do realize in the 3 games you're mentioning for Brady those bad QBs playing against great defense scored more total points than the superstar QBs scored total against Joe in all 4 Superbowls combined right? I mean this has to be the worst argument anyone has put forward for Montana. And I'm someone who thinks there are very valid arguments for Joe Cool. This is not one of them. It's moronic. The argument not you.
12punch
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Steeler
Footballguy
I don't really care about this debate but I'm just curious if anyone mentioned the dropped INT that Montana threw against the Bengals? Had the cincy DB caught the ball Montana would not be undefeated in Super Bowls. Not sure how much that one play would change the image of Montana but that play is very rarely ever discussed when talking about his legacy.
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
It gets brought up all time and has been mentioned in this thread a few times.
If my aunt had a #### she 'd be my uncle.
12punch
Footballguy
was mentioned maybe only a couple times out of the 1000 posts about this, or whatever it was -- maybe that was even you who brought it up.
maybe this thread should be changed from 'greatest' to 'luckiest'
also, wasn't that bengals sb the one where jerry rice caught 11 balls for 215/1 using stickum?
12punch
Footballguy
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/walkthrough/2006/too-deep-zone-jerry-rice-rookie-bust
wow, something really got that guy turned around............
Last edited by a moderator:
He had a terribly costly play against the Giants in the playoffs that year (I think). He caught a slant and was headed for a TD (I think near the beginning of the game) and he inexplicably fumbled, the Giants recovered, went down the field and scored. Changed the entire complexion of the game.
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
Shutout
Footballguy
absolutely and exactly.
The other thing that sways it for Montana for me (and I know this is subjective) is that Montana played in an era where defense was still allowed and the HOF is absolutely peppered with defensive players from his era.
Comparing eras is frowned upon, I know, but this isn't like trying to build an argument for Brady based off numbers in a different era. This is simple eye ball test. In the course of NFL history, nearly half of the all-time great defensive players played during Montana's time, many of the iconic. We talk about Revis this and Julius Peppers that, etc in recent years now, but back then guys like Rod Woodson and Deion Sanders were just littered in with names like Lawrence Taylor, Reggie White, Darrell Green, on and on and on. That's a difference, to me (just my opinion).
Shutout
Footballguy
the hole in your argument though is that, by and large, nobody counts the teams that beat the Patriots as all-time dominant defensive teams. Most people see getting past the '85 Bears or .'86 Giants as a tougher proposition than the 2006 Colts.
Shutout
Footballguy
Just like Brady has had some great supporting defenders, Montana had his share. Team game, ya know?
But overall the point is there were SO many household name HOF defenders in Montana's time and, unlike today, they could actually hit the QB or the crossing WR, etc. Just the fact that scoring is so much higher in today's game suggests to me (just my opinion), that playing the QB position was more difficult physically than it is now).
A guy like Manning today can sit back and pick teams apart but who knows how he may have fared against LT, FDerrick Thomas, Jerome Brown, Bruce Smith, Reggie White, Charles Haley, a team of Bears, etc. Just seems like back then, there were enough players to make EVERY week a significant challenge. How many games a year are there now where the elite QBs face great defenses? 3 or 4?
Maybe a guy like Big Ben would have absolutely been a dominant player back then. Then again, maybe the beating he would have taken would have eclipsed that.
We can call it what we want, but I have a hunch that if you couldn't touch Joe Montana like you can't these qbs today, they may not have needed to carry a punter.
well, brady is some really flukey plays away from 2 more rings. i mean, helmet catch ofc, but no one remembers asante samuel dropping an easy int. also, if moss had some wim, he woulda made that deep catch too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K36wgL4VLHM
then, ofc, welker's terrible drop that woulda sealed it.
and i am sure no one remembers how luck montana was that the bungle db bungled it beyond belief. i mean, he made samuel's drop look like a circus play. it was a larry brown easy play.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJFOBI1cZaM
so, anyway, we all know that rings are the only thing that matters and so id say that bradys theoretical rings break the tie on actual rings.
lol this is just amazing. gotta be trolling. otherwise, its truly scary about the logical ability of our nation.
Old Smiley
Footballguy
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Coulda woulda shoulda is noway to run a railroad. Brady was really close to winning 7 SBs (I also include 2006 when NE blew a 21-3 lead against IND and lost in the final minute . . . either team could have had their way with CHI). In their 2 SB loses, NE has the lead with under a minute to go in both of them. Not sure you can really fault Brady in those for not winning.
On the flip side, Brady is just as close to never having won any SBs, as the Pats barely won each of their 4 titles (and had very close calls to even get to the SB).
Bottom line, we can only evaluate what did happennot wonder about what didn't happen.
On the flip side, Brady is just as close to never having won any SBs, as the Pats barely won each of their 4 titles (and had very close calls to even get to the SB).
Bottom line, we can only evaluate what did happennot wonder about what didn't happen.
12punch
Footballguy
yeah, I do know --- as evidenced by the fact that the niners stopped winning once the cap was in place.Shutout said:
I believe they saw 1 conference game in the 20 years following implementation of the cap, which they lost, incidentally.
ya know
once the niners were forced to spend like every other team they started winning like every other team, and this is even despite circumventing the cap using the ir.
but i guess they each 'had their share' of guys in a team sport, right?
theplayer11
Footballguy
totally correct..easily Brady..the 4-0 > 4-2 argument is just dumb, really dumb. How many one and outs for Montana?
This poll reflects the Patriots hate, nothing to do with reality.
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
He is so superior in super bowls that he throws a ball that can not be INT'd. You seriously didn't know that?
4-0>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>4-2
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Sorry, but it's not something that can NOT be blown off. It's actually a pretty damn important tidbit.
If you are going to talk about who is better between two guys (let alone the best ever), you have to talk about how they are actually PLAYING rather than absolutely nothing but results.
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Of course it is and should be (regarding comparing eras)
But would MOntana have 4 super bowls playing today, with 2 losses? Who knows.
I am not going to bother trying to make a case for either since it's the most fruitless battle ever. Impossible to win on either side.
However, some of the specific arguments are enough to make me wonder how people ever learned how to tie their shoes or count to 10. How else do you explain people that think it is better to not even get to a super bowl than to get there and lose?
People are trying to argue that Montana was the better big game QB, yet he lose more big games.
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
This isn't true at all, unless you want to be totally lazy and not bother to evaluate how they actually played.
If crazy helmet catch never happened, would you think Brady is better than Montana???? If you think MOntana is better, but would change your mind if that helmet catch never happened, then that is just insanity. I would hope you could see that.
12punch
Footballguy
you'd think with all that stickum all over his balls there'd never be a dropped pick
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Umm, so, when Brady is no longer in NE, you do realize this probably happens there also, right? Right???
Niles Standish
Footballguy
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/team_stats.htmShutout said:
Scoring average in Montana's 4 superbowl seasons:
20.7, 21.2, 20.3, 20.6 that's an average of 20.7 exactly.
Scoring average in Brady's 4 superbowl seasons:
20.2, 20.8, 21.5, 22.6 that's an average of 21.275.
So from an average of 1/2 ppg more you're coming to some pretty interesting conclusions.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
New ball every play??
This is so funny. I actually think MOntana was the better QB. I am not gonna even bother to try and argue why. It's like arguing Blonde or Brunette.
But some of the arguments for Montana in here are ridiculous. Where are the SMART Montana people?? I have only read a few actual tangible things in here.
12punch
Footballguy
actually I don't realize that -- think you're sleepin' on the pats.
you do realize that in the 4 years after montana moved on from the niners, '91-'94 they went to 3 ccg and won a sb without him.
then in the next 4 years following that, after the cap was imposed, they appeared in a single ccg, which they lost.
you do realize that, right? right???
12punch
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Didn't you say 4-0 is better than 4-2? Or where you the guy making a funny on that one?
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the only season of Montana's career where that kind of gap in the salaries existed. So the whole "over the last 10 years" argument is dense. Fact is, during his reign of SB excellence, Montana was never competing with the kind of financial inequity you always want to saddle him with in your contrived little pseudo-argument. Indeed, he competed with a lot less scandal and speculation from the media than Brady has during his career.If you want to spotlight this season, then a semi-intelligent question to ask would be: what would Brady have done with a similar salary buffer to the one Montana DID have in the one year you saw fit to highlight, 1990?
you guys don't even know that by the 80s qb had stopped playing both ways.
montana didn't defeat those qb --- the niners incredible defense did.
I wasn't going to bother reposting all that stuff that's already been posted in the other thread but if it really has to be done.............
now, what were you saying about captaining teams led by great defenses.............?
wonder how many sb wins brady would have with a defense routinely holding teams to single digits.
the fact that montana played on a team with a defense that could actually stifle all these great qb is not quite the point for montana that you guys seem to think it is.
and your tired bit about the afce being a weak division has already been debunked several times in other threads, troll --- you'll have to look it up yourself, though.
I'm not reposting half the board in here
I'll admit you were dead on about the niners' ####ty division, though --- here's the payroll of all nfl teams from 1990
Well, what Montana did was lead the Niners to a 14-1 regular season record during the games he played, win the NFL MVP, and guide the team to a lead in the NFCCG against the best D in football. Alas, he got injured while the Niners led and Steve Young couldn't seal the deal...which you can use as fodder for whatever franchise comparisons you like, but really doesn't reflect on the QB comparison any more than the AFCCG Bledsoe won for Brady.
Would Brady have led them to an undefeated record, and then not gotten hurt? I guess that's your contention, as it's the only way he could have improved on Montana's effort that year. Although, again, it's not like Brady's record is spotless when it comes to staying healthy in conference championship games.
Is there something to the argument that Joe had a year when the Niners could have been said to have had an unfair financial advantage? Sure. And Joe killed it that year.
Brady's great. So was Joe. Stop trying to make up arguments that just come back and make you look foolish when someone who can be bothered to annihilate them takes the time to do so. If you want to try to make anti-Joe arguments, you need to know what was going on back then. You clearly don't, as is shown over and over again in your failed attempts to tear him down.
Why not trust the opinions of the people who were alive and watching football at the time, and who understood what they were seeing? I don't know if you're too young to remember those seasons, or just don't understand the game well enough to comment...but for those who tick both the old-enough and knowledgeable-enough boxes, your sad attempts to try and score points with half-arsed, make-believe arguments ring awfully hollow.
Just accept that Joe was great, too, wave your little Patriot pom poms, and be done with it. Because that's ultimately all a guy like you can achieve in a discussion that necessitates actual knowledge of both guys being discussed.
Simple he only won 3 so he already lost that conversation if its around Super Bowl wins.
the ppl espousing that argument arent even following it in a true fashion. if 2nd=last, then why is brady penalized more for finishing 2nd? they cant even get their argument straight.
12punch
Footballguy
This is the only season of Montana's career where that kind of gap in the salaries existed. So the whole "over the last 10 years" argument is dense. Fact is, during his reign of SB excellence, Montana was never competing with the kind of financial inequity you always want to saddle him with in your contrived little pseudo-argument. Indeed, he competed with a lot less scandal and speculation from the media than Brady has during his career.If you want to spotlight this season, then a semi-intelligent question to ask would be: what would Brady have done with a similar salary buffer to the one Montana DID have in the one year you saw fit to highlight, 1990?
Well, what Montana did was lead the Niners to a 14-1 regular season record during the games he played, win the NFL MVP, and guide the team to a lead in the NFCCG against the best D in football. Alas, he got injured while the Niners led and Steve Young couldn't seal the deal...which you can use as fodder for whatever franchise comparisons you like, but really doesn't reflect on the QB comparison any more than the AFCCG Bledsoe won for Brady.
Would Brady have led them to an undefeated record, and then not gotten hurt? I guess that's your contention, as it's the only way he could have improved on Montana's effort that year. Although, again, it's not like Brady's record is spotless when it comes to staying healthy in conference championship games.
Is there something to the argument that Joe had a year when the Niners could have been said to have had an unfair financial advantage? Sure. And Joe killed it that year.
Brady's great. So was Joe. Stop trying to make up arguments that just come back and make you look foolish when someone who can be bothered to annihilate them takes the time to do so. If you want to try to make anti-Joe arguments, you need to know what was going on back then. You clearly don't, as is shown over and over again in your failed attempts to tear him down.
Why not trust the opinions of the people who were alive and watching football at the time, and who understood what they were seeing? I don't know if you're too young to remember those seasons, or just don't understand the game well enough to comment...but for those who tick both the old-enough and knowledgeable-enough boxes, your sad attempts to try and score points with half-arsed, make-believe arguments ring awfully hollow.
Just accept that Joe was great, too, wave your little Patriot pom poms, and be done with it. Because that's ultimately all a guy like you can achieve in a discussion that necessitates actual knowledge of both guys being discussed.
omg somebody had their bedroom walls wallpapered with montana posters when they were growing up.you don't have to get so defensive about it --- just because montana can't live up to the brady standard, or his own larger than life legend for that matter, doesn't mean he's not any good at all.
I mean, you do realize this is a thread asking who was better, right?
it's true he bought championships, had a hof receiver covered with stickum, rode the back of one of the great defenses, and still failed more often than not, but where did I say he wasn't great?
Last edited by a moderator:
12punch
Footballguy
and btw, I should probably let this go so I don't get annihilated, or whatever.
but in that ccg against the giants in 1990 montana guided his team to a whopping 13 points with only 5 min to play on 190 yds and 1 td --- but belichick rolled out a tough d, of course, the kind of d the seahawks only dream about.steve young couldn't "seal the deal" due to the giants recovering a roger craig fumble and marching down for the winning fg --- I know you're aware of this as you are both old enough to have actually watched it, and are also such a savvy football viewer that you understood it.
so, was your point that craig wouldn't have fumbled that ball had montana not gotten hurt, or that montana would've been used on defense had he not gotten hurt?
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Niles Standish
Footballguy
I bet he had quite a few close calls. That being said Brady's teams have averaged more points than Manning's.
12punch
Footballguy
and btw, I should probably let this go so I don't get annihilated, or whatever.
steve young couldn't "seal the deal" due to the giants recovering a roger craig fumble and marching down for the winning fg --- I know you're aware of this as you are both old enough to have actually watched it, and are also such a savvy football viewer that you understood it.
so, was your point that craig wouldn't have fumbled that ball had montana not gotten hurt, or that montana would've been used on defense had he not gotten hurt?
that's what I thought.....
Last edited by a moderator:
Casting Couch
Footballguy
Montana's ugly multiple one and dones during his peak years, as well as his lackluster KC swansong, leads me to give the very slight edge to Brady,
They are one two, I could see flip flopping them. Brady's defenses were mainly responsible for losing those 2 Super Bowls, not Brady.
Brady just complete the largest comeback in SB history, by playing the greatest 4th quarter in SB history.
They are one two, I could see flip flopping them. Brady's defenses were mainly responsible for losing those 2 Super Bowls, not Brady.
Brady just complete the largest comeback in SB history, by playing the greatest 4th quarter in SB history.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
