Brady vs. Montana - who is greater all-time? (1 Viewer)

[Bayhawks]

4-0 > 4-2

Nuff said

So Brady is penalized for getting to 2 more SBs ?

penalized? Credit is given to Montana for leading his team to victory EVERY TIME he played in a championship game.

Both QBs won 4 SuperBowls, both have 3 SB MVPs, both have been NFL MVP twice, Montana was a 3-time All-Pro, Brady has been All-Pro 2 times, Brady is a 10-time Pro-Bowler, Montana was an 8 time Pro-Bowler, Montana was on the 1980s "All-Decade" team, Brady was on the 2000s "All-Decade" team. They are pretty equal, as far as QBs go, so if one has 4 wins, with no losses in championship games, and the other has 4 wins, but also lost twice, credit should be given to the guy who got the job done, EVERY TIME.

So 4-3 in Conf championship games is > 6-3?

I think since I mentioned "SUPER BOWL" every time I posted in this thread that it is clear that I'm referring to the SuperBowl when I say championship game, not the AFCC or NFCC.

 

[Niles Standish]

4-0 > 4-2

Nuff said

So Brady is penalized for getting to 2 more SBs ?

penalized? Credit is given to Montana for leading his team to victory EVERY TIME he played in a championship game. Both QBs won 4 SuperBowls, both have 3 SB MVPs, both have been NFL MVP twice, Montana was a 3-time All-Pro, Brady has been All-Pro 2 times, Brady is a 10-time Pro-Bowler, Montana was an 8 time Pro-Bowler, Montana was on the 1980s "All-Decade" team, Brady was on the 2000s "All-Decade" team. They are pretty equal, as far as QBs go, so if one has 4 wins, with no losses in championship games, and the other has 4 wins, but also lost twice, credit should be given to the guy who got the job done, EVERY TIME.

Such horrific logic.I think montana was better, but arguments like this give us montana people such a bad name.

Horrific logic? The 2 are pretty similar, so I give the edge to the guy who has a 1.000 winning % in SuperBowls over the guy who has a .667 winning %. Please elaborate on the "horror" of my logic.

It's horrible logic. So if Brady didn't even make the playoffs the two times he lost the Super Bowl, you would say that helps his case?

If Brady had a 1.000 winning percentage in the SB (with 4 wins to his credit); yes, I'd say that would help his cause, with regards to this discussion.

So in 1985 The 49ers lost 17-3 to the Giants. You're saying if instead they had beaten the Giants, then beaten the Bears then beaten the Rams and lost to the Pats it would have been worse? Seriously think about that one.

 

[Old Smiley]

I don't have a problem not picking. It's more of a Mount Rushmore type of deal to me.

 

[moleculo]

A better question: who is a better coach - Walsh or Belichick?

 

[ShamrockPride]

A better question: who is a better coach - Walsh or Belichick?

Let's leave that for another thread.

 

[UncleZen]

I think on the field they are very close so I used one deciding factor in voting for Brady, Gisele.

 

[FUBAR]

How did Montana not make the pro bowl more than 8 times? That's just barely more than half his career. It's not like he was competing with Marino and Elway.

 

[Ghost Rider]

It's surprising to see that Montana was only first team All-Pro thrice, and Brady twice. That means only five times combined were one of the two considered the best QB in the league in a season.

 

[Old Smiley]

It's surprising to see that Montana was only first team All-Pro thrice, and Brady twice. That means only five times combined were one of the two considered the best QB in the league in a season.

Who was his competition?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Marino, Fouts, Theismann, Kenny Anderson, etc.

 

[Old Smiley]

Them ain't chumps.

 

[DropKick]

4-0 > 4-2

Nuff said

So Brady is penalized for getting to 2 more SBs ?

penalized? Credit is given to Montana for leading his team to victory EVERY TIME he played in a championship game. Both QBs won 4 SuperBowls, both have 3 SB MVPs, both have been NFL MVP twice, Montana was a 3-time All-Pro, Brady has been All-Pro 2 times, Brady is a 10-time Pro-Bowler, Montana was an 8 time Pro-Bowler, Montana was on the 1980s "All-Decade" team, Brady was on the 2000s "All-Decade" team. They are pretty equal, as far as QBs go, so if one has 4 wins, with no losses in championship games, and the other has 4 wins, but also lost twice, credit should be given to the guy who got the job done, EVERY TIME.

Such horrific logic.

I think montana was better, but arguments like this give us montana people such a bad name.

Horrific logic? The 2 are pretty similar, so I give the edge to the guy who has a 1.000 winning % in SuperBowls over the guy who has a .667 winning %. Please elaborate on the "horror" of my logic.

Yes, that is horrific logic. You're rewarding Montana for getting knocked out of the play-offs early.

If the question was "who has the highest SB winning percentage" I'd agree with you...

 

[FUBAR]

Them ain't chumps.

Brady was behind Peyton most of his career both for all pro and in his conference.

Peyton has 7 first team all pro and 14 pro bowls.

 

[Heatman]

What If Brady doesn't Get Hurt In 2008?

champioooonshiiiiiiip

What if Montana didn't get hurt in the 1990 NFC Championship game.

If Montana didn't get hurt in the 1990 NFC championship game he probably has 2 more SB wins, or at least 2 more chances to win it. Young may not have gotten a shot with SF unless he would have stayed a backup for another 4 or 5 years.

Both great QBs but if up to me I take Montana.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Why are you assuming the 49ers win that game if he doesn't get hurt? Besides, it's not like he tweaked a hammy and left the game; the Giants knocked him out of the game, and the 49ers O wasn't exactly lighting it on fire that game anyway.

 

[Heatman]

Why are you assuming the 49ers win that game if he doesn't get hurt? Besides, it's not like he tweaked a hammy and left the game; the Giants knocked him out of the game, and the 49ers O wasn't exactly lighting it on fire that game anyway.

Which is why I said "or at least 2 more chances to win it." May not have been that year but imo he would have made it back a couple more times.

This whole thread is personal opinion. Some like one, some like the other better. I would LOVE to have either running my team.

 

[Tau837]

Normally, winning is probably overrated when comparing QBs. But in this case, both guys played for elite coaches and with good to great teams throughout their careers. Both won Super Bowls with poor supporting casts on offense and both also excelled with HOF caliber offensive teammates (Rice vs. Moss, Gronk). So winning actually seems more relevant in this case. Here is the comparison:

Regular season: Montana 117-47 (.713), Brady 160-47 (.773). Edge Brady.

Postseason: Montana 16-7 (.696), Brady 21-8 (.724). Edge Brady.

In playoffs (since becoming starter): Montana 11 times in 14 seasons, Brady 12 times in 14 seasons. (Both missed 1 entire season due to injury.) Edge Brady.

In conference championship game (since becoming starter): Montana 7 times in 14 seasons, Brady 9 times in 14 seasons. Edge Brady.

Both have 2 MVPs, 3 Super Bowl MVPs, and 1 Comeback POY. Brady has 2 OPOYs to Montana's 1, but Montana has 3 1st team and 2 2nd team All Pro selections to Brady's 2 and 1, respectively. I give Montana a slight edge in the honors/awards category, which suggests a slight edge in how they were viewed relative to peers.

Brady has better accumulated and rate statistics for both regular season and postseason, though Montana still ranks impressively. This edge in accumulated statistics is largely due to the fact that Brady has played 17 more games than Montana and started 49 more games, but also in part to era differences. The edge in rate statistics is similarly due in part to era differences. IMO Montana was better qualitatively, but I think playing and starting more games at a high level is valuable, so I'd have to give Brady a slight edge here.

Montana had 31 4Q comebacks and 33 game winning drives in 215 regular season and postseason games (187 starts). Brady has had 35 4Q comebacks and 46 game winning drives in 238 regular season and postseason games (236 starts). Montana actually did it more often but again Brady has higher totals because he has started so many more games. Both guys are/were clutch. No edge here.

I don't think Brady has had any real impact in revolutionizing the game, whereas I give Montana at least a bit of credit for that. While the West Coast offense didn't begin with the 80s 49ers, it certainly rose to prominence in large part due to their success, and Montana was the key player in that success.

As many have said, it is really close. IMO the top tier of QBs now includes Unitas, Montana, and Brady, and it is pretty difficult to fairly separate them from one another. Brady could do more to change this before he is done, but for now I don't think he or Montana can be clearly stated to be better than the other.

 

[Manster]

Montana

4-0 and he didn't throw an interception in any of those SB's.

 

[grateful zed]

why is this debate still going on, it's Montana.

 

[PatsWillWin]

4-0 > 4-2

Nuff said

So Brady is penalized for getting to 2 more SBs ?

penalized? Credit is given to Montana for leading his team to victory EVERY TIME he played in a championship game. Both QBs won 4 SuperBowls, both have 3 SB MVPs, both have been NFL MVP twice, Montana was a 3-time All-Pro, Brady has been All-Pro 2 times, Brady is a 10-time Pro-Bowler, Montana was an 8 time Pro-Bowler, Montana was on the 1980s "All-Decade" team, Brady was on the 2000s "All-Decade" team. They are pretty equal, as far as QBs go, so if one has 4 wins, with no losses in championship games, and the other has 4 wins, but also lost twice, credit should be given to the guy who got the job done, EVERY TIME.

Such horrific logic.I think montana was better, but arguments like this give us montana people such a bad name.

Horrific logic? The 2 are pretty similar, so I give the edge to the guy who has a 1.000 winning % in SuperBowls over the guy who has a .667 winning %. Please elaborate on the "horror" of my logic.

Because you are essentially giving Montana more credit for losing to the Giants 49-3 in the first round of the playoffs than you are for Brady losing to the Giants in the SB when dude catches a ball with his helmet.

This.

The "Super Bowl winning %" is really a stupid argument.

Trolling/homerism aside, I didn't watch Montana play. I was 9 during his last year with SFF. I don't feel qualified to debate Brady vs. Montana. I do think it's probably down to those two, and I feel very qualified arguing that the Brady vs. Manning debate is six feet under.

BUT...the Super Bowl percentage record is just dumb. You're essentially punishing Brady for winning more conference championships than Montana, which, if you're going to accept the whole QB is given credit for wins/rings thing, is completely ### backwards.

 

[Raider Nation]

Montana might be better, but the argument that his team didn't lose 2 super bowls is horrific. To say nothing of ranking players by team w-l stats, giving a player credit for not making it to the SB is bad.

Please elaborate on the "horror" of my logic.

Making the Super Bowl is better than not making the Super Bowl. Hope that helps.

If someone needs it explained to them, they are either just trolling or are incapable of getting it.

Big mouth weighs in.

 

[drummer]

Whole lot of arguments based on semantics in this thread. Which doesn't serve either QB's legacies. Just serving your own lesser pissing match.

People forget that the 49ers once had an organization that could plug in a backup and still win a game or two. Even post Salary Cap.

Here is a kicker: Joe Montana won 2 SBs, and Troy Aikman won 3. With Charles Haley. Had Haley not pissed on George Seiferts car, Steve Young may had won more than one SB. The 49er offense became a lot more dynamic with Steve Young under center post Montana, yet Young is still not Joe. Young still holds the SB record of 6 TD passes in the SB.

Tom Brady passed his idol Joe Montana not by winning this SB. His 2007 season is a benchmark. If he had a Charles Haley in his prime on that team, he could have led the Pats to a perfect season with those stellar numbers. Steve Young could had won just one more if Carmen Policy wasn't such an idiot trading him to DAL.

 

[FUBAR]

Whole lot of arguments based on semantics in this thread. Which doesn't serve either QB's legacies. Just serving your own lesser pissing match.

People forget that the 49ers once had an organization that could plug in a backup and still win a game or two. Even post Salary Cap.

Here is a kicker: Joe Montana won 2 SBs, and Troy Aikman won 3. With Charles Haley. Had Haley not pissed on George Seiferts car, Steve Young may had won more than one SB. The 49er offense became a lot more dynamic with Steve Young under center post Montana, yet Young is still not Joe. Young still holds the SB record of 6 TD passes in the SB.

Tom Brady passed his idol Joe Montana not by winning this SB. His 2007 season is a benchmark. If he had a Charles Haley in his prime on that team, he could have led the Pats to a perfect season with those stellar numbers. Steve Young could had won just one more if Carmen Policy wasn't such an idiot trading him to DAL.

Haley is great no doubt, but he wasn't even the best defensive player in San Fran.

:hijack:

 

[Rookie_Whisperer]

Eli is 2-0 in Super Bowls.

Elway is 2-3 in Super Bowls.

So therefore, Eli > Elway, right?

That is somebody's logic, which makes zero sense. Also, Trent Dilfer > Peyton Manning

 

[FUBAR]

Eli is 2-0 in Super Bowls.

Elway is 2-3 in Super Bowls.

So therefore, Eli > Elway, right?

That is somebody's logic, which makes zero sense. Also, Trent Dilfer > Peyton Manning

Clearly Terry Bradshaw is Montana's equal and Aikman better than Staubach.

 

[Old Smiley]

I guess one thing you could think about is that Brady never blew anybody out. And wouldn't this year be the first time Pats covered as a favorite?

edit: talking Superbowls

 

[ghostguy123]

When we're here discussing 4x SB winning QBs, why the f### is anyone focusing on anything but titles or numbers? Resumes aren't looked at by order of elimination. You 4-2>4-0 guys knock Montana for this all the time but likewise I don't give Brady more credit for being the 2nd or 3rd best team more times than Joe. Who cares?? If you aren't first, you're last. Each year there is one winner and 31 losers, the rest are moral victories. As far as I can see, they were both first 4 times (with Brady a chance at 5).

Unfortunately for you, that isnt how careers are viewed for individual players.you do know there are guys in the hall of fame who never won a super bowl right? Right???

You're right, excuse me. That's how careers are viewed for quarterbacks.

I guess that is why ONLY super bowl winning QBs are in the hall of fame then, right? Right???

 

[ghostguy123]

I guess one thing you could think about is that Brady never blew anybody out. And wouldn't this year be the first time Pats covered as a favorite?

edit: talking Superbowls

Did montana play defense also?

 

[Rookie_Whisperer]

There is no denying that Montana was a great QB, but those were different times. With the salary cap, free agency and parity being what they are today, I'd argue that Brady had a heavier lift just getting to the Superbowl, let alone winning as many as he has. Who else has had his level of success since FA and salary cap were implemented? I think anyone alive during Montana's playing days can name his supporting cast on offense while most fans of the game can't tell you who Brady won with during his first 3 SB wins. He has never had a stable RB situation, and a rotation of no name WRs other than Moss and Welker. Brady has made some marginal talent at WR look very decent. Face it, the guy is tough, strong armed, accurate, great competitor, leader and student of the game who makes guys around him better and has shown over and over again that he doesn't need great weapons to win. The team also shipped off, arguably the anchor of his O-line, for a washing machine and new pair of cleats right before the season started and one of his better friends and safety valve at WR last year after he restructures his own contract to free up cap money to sign a WR that will help, which they totally whiffed on in Amendola.

Make no mistake, I am no Patriots fan, but I am a fan of a guy who consistently wins regardless of the situation and there is no way the pats would be able to play "money-ball" the way they do without Tom Brady at QB and get away with it.

 

[Ghost Rider]

A better question: who is a better coach - Walsh or Belichick?

Belichick. Walsh won three Super Bowls, and was obviously more innovative, but he only won one playoff game in the seven other seasons he coached. Walsh's lack of longevity (he only coached for 10 years) hurts him when comparing him to a guy like Belichick (who has been a head coach more than twice as long).

 

[Old Smiley]

I guess one thing you could think about is that Brady never blew anybody out. And wouldn't this year be the first time Pats covered as a favorite?

edit: talking Superbowls

Did montana play defense also?

But that calls into question all the win loss arguments, doesn't it? Like I say, I'm content with a tie, or a ring of honour.

 

[Rookie_Whisperer]

A better question: who is a better coach - Walsh or Belichick?

Belichick. Walsh won three Super Bowls, and was obviously more innovative, but he only won one playoff game in the seven other seasons he coached. Walsh's lack of longevity (he only coached for 10 years) hurts him when comparing him to a guy like Belichick (who has been a head coach more than twice as long).

I don't see it as a 'better' question. It is another factor for sure in the success of both of the QBs here as is their respective front offices and their abilities to retain and add talent on both sides of the ball. There are a lot of factors here, but Steve Young also jumped right in after Montana moved on and had success. I don't see the ability of the Patriots to just plug in another guy (not saying Steve Young was "just a guy" because he wasn't) on their roster and continue winning Superbowls at this pace while cutting corners at paying guys, and I guarantee they don't think they can either or they would have shipped him off with the rest and plugged in a cheaper option.

 

[Tau837]

A better question: who is a better coach - Walsh or Belichick?

Belichick. Walsh won three Super Bowls, and was obviously more innovative, but he only won one playoff game in the seven other seasons he coached. Walsh's lack of longevity (he only coached for 10 years) hurts him when comparing him to a guy like Belichick (who has been a head coach more than twice as long).

Agreed. Plus, Belichick was DC and Assistant Head Coach for Parcells when he had almost all of his success, including winning two Super Bowls with the Giants. Belichick was one of the best assistant coaches ever before he was one of the best head coaches ever.

 

[Tau837]

A better question: who is a better coach - Walsh or Belichick?

Belichick. Walsh won three Super Bowls, and was obviously more innovative, but he only won one playoff game in the seven other seasons he coached. Walsh's lack of longevity (he only coached for 10 years) hurts him when comparing him to a guy like Belichick (who has been a head coach more than twice as long).

I don't see it as a 'better' question. It is another factor for sure in the success of both of the QBs here as is their respective front offices and their abilities to retain and add talent on both sides of the ball. There are a lot of factors here, but Steve Young also jumped right in after Montana moved on and had success. I don't see the ability of the Patriots to just plug in another guy (not saying Steve Young was "just a guy" because he wasn't) on their roster and continue winning Superbowls at this pace while cutting corners at paying guys, and I guarantee they don't think they can either or they would have shipped him off with the rest and plugged in a cheaper option.

The fact that the 49ers had Young to follow Montana and the Patriots don't seem to have an equivalent (at least not now) to follow Brady is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[FUBAR]

A better question: who is a better coach - Walsh or Belichick?

Belichick. Walsh won three Super Bowls, and was obviously more innovative, but he only won one playoff game in the seven other seasons he coached. Walsh's lack of longevity (he only coached for 10 years) hurts him when comparing him to a guy like Belichick (who has been a head coach more than twice as long).

BB has been innovative.

But his innovations have been called illegal by the haters.

 

[ghostguy123]

Let me sum this up. It is better to either miss the playoffs entirely or lose before getting to the super bowl than it is to lose IN the super bowl??

If you truly believe this, get back on your meds. Please. PLEASE

 

[Tau837]

With the salary cap, free agency and parity being what they are today

No doubt this is part of the era difference, but I think how much this benefitted Montana vs. current day players is overstated. For one thing, it led to Montana's departure from the 49ers, since they were able to pay everyone on the team while keeping Young on the roster as a backup. Those 49ers also could not sign free agents like Moss and Revis to bolster their roster.

I think anyone alive during Montana's playing days can name his supporting cast on offense

I doubt many people alive during Montana's playing days can name the offensive players on his first Super Bowl team. These were the other starters:

RB - Ricky Patton

FB - Earl Cooper

WR - Dwight Clark, Freddie Solomon

TE - Charle Young

LT - Dan Audick

LG - John Ayers

C - Fred Quillan

RG - Randy Cross

RT - Keith Fahnhorst

Not exactly household names known to fans everywhere. Maybe you were referring to his second Super Bowl team:

RB - Wendell Tyler

FB - Roger Craig

WR - Dwight Clark, Freddie Solomon

TE - Earl Cooper

LT - Bubba Paris

LG - John Ayers

C - Fred Quillan

RG - Randy Cross

RT - Keith Fahnhorst


Everyone knows Jerry Rice, of course, but many don't know that Montana's first two Super Bowls were before Rice was drafted. On his third Super Bowl team, he had Rice and Craig but do most people know that Mike Wilson was the other starting WR? That Ron Heller was the starting TE? That they had different starters at every OL position from the previous Super Bowl team?

The idea that Montana played all of his Super Bowl years with All Star offensive casts is wrong. Plain and simple.

Brady has made some marginal talent at WR look very decent.

Every great QB has done that. Montana did it with Clark, Solomon, John Taylor, and others.

 

[ShamrockPride]

When we're here discussing 4x SB winning QBs, why the f### is anyone focusing on anything but titles or numbers? Resumes aren't looked at by order of elimination. You 4-2>4-0 guys knock Montana for this all the time but likewise I don't give Brady more credit for being the 2nd or 3rd best team more times than Joe. Who cares?? If you aren't first, you're last. Each year there is one winner and 31 losers, the rest are moral victories. As far as I can see, they were both first 4 times (with Brady a chance at 5).

Unfortunately for you, that isnt how careers are viewed for individual players.you do know there are guys in the hall of fame who never won a super bowl right? Right???

You're right, excuse me. That's how careers are viewed for quarterbacks.

I guess that is why ONLY super bowl winning QBs are in the hall of fame then, right? Right???

Of course not. But we're not talking about HoF QB's are we? Though that's all it should be, once you're in the HoF, you're great. Period. End of story. But no. No. People, humans naturally need to rank and compare, so here we are talking about not HoF QB's, we're talking about the GREATEST QB (omg), THE GREATEST. Obviously, they're held to a far different standard.

 

[ghostguy123]

When we're here discussing 4x SB winning QBs, why the f### is anyone focusing on anything but titles or numbers? Resumes aren't looked at by order of elimination. You 4-2>4-0 guys knock Montana for this all the time but likewise I don't give Brady more credit for being the 2nd or 3rd best team more times than Joe. Who cares?? If you aren't first, you're last. Each year there is one winner and 31 losers, the rest are moral victories. As far as I can see, they were both first 4 times (with Brady a chance at 5).

Unfortunately for you, that isnt how careers are viewed for individual players.you do know there are guys in the hall of fame who never won a super bowl right? Right???

You're right, excuse me. That's how careers are viewed for quarterbacks.

I guess that is why ONLY super bowl winning QBs are in the hall of fame then, right? Right???

Of course not. But we're not talking about HoF QB's are we? Though that's all it should be, once you're in the HoF, you're great. Period. End of story. But no. No. People, humans naturally need to rank and compare, so here we are talking about not HoF QB's, we're talking about the GREATEST QB (omg), THE GREATEST. Obviously, they're held to a far different standard.

Right, the standard of taking his team further than the other guy more often. Derrrr

The Ricky Boddy "if ur not 1st ur last" quote is a cool quote, but it's irrelevant to pretty much any conversation, obviously including this one.

 

[Rookie_Whisperer]

With the salary cap, free agency and parity being what they are today

No doubt this is part of the era difference, but I think how much this benefitted Montana vs. current day players is overstated. For one thing, it led to Montana's departure from the 49ers, since they were able to pay everyone on the team while keeping Young on the roster as a backup. Those 49ers also could not sign free agents like Moss and Revis to bolster their roster.

I think anyone alive during Montana's playing days can name his supporting cast on offense

I doubt anyone alive during Montana's playing days can name the offensive players on his first Super Bowl team. These were the other starters:

RB - Ricky Patton

FB - Earl Cooper

WR - Dwight Clark, Freddie Solomon

TE - Charle Young

LT - Dan Audick

LG - John Ayers

C - Fred Quillan

RG - Randy Cross

RT - Keith Fahnhorst

Not exactly household names known to fans everywhere. Maybe you were referring to his second Super Bowl team:

RB - Wendell Tyler

FB - Roger Craig (rookie year)

WR - Dwight Clark, Freddie Solomon

TE - Earl Cooper

LT - Bubba Paris

LG - John Ayers

C - Fred Quillan

RG - Randy Cross

RT - Keith Fahnhorst


Everyone knows Jerry Rice, of course, but many don't know that Montana's first two Super Bowls were before Rice was drafted. On his third Super Bowl team, he had Rice and Craig but do most people know that Mike Wilson was the other starting WR? That Ron Heller was the starting TE? That they had different starters at every OL position from the previous Super Bowl team?

The idea that Montana played all of his Super Bowl years with All Star offensive casts is wrong. Plain and simple.

Brady has made some marginal talent at WR look very decent.

Every great QB has done that. Montana did it with Clark, Solomon, John Taylor, and others.

All good points. Maybe I'm overrating Dwight Clark a bit early on, but I certainly was a fan of his back in the day as we got to see all 49er games due to where I grew up and most fans of NFL football know his name along with John Taylor. Having HOFer Jerry Rice along with Roger Craig (drafted in '83) and Tom Rathman, both whose receiving stats can't be dismissed, and being able to retain them for the bulk of their productive careers are a big factor in Montana's success at least during their dominant period of the late 80s and early 90s. And even though Craig and Clark are not in the HOF, their names are still tossed around while there is zero chance a RB from the Brady era will ever be inducted and there is no telling who the starting WRs are going to be next year other than maybe Edelman? I still contend that Brady has not had any continuity at the RB position and has had to relearn who his WR and TE targets were going to be more seasons than not and has thrived in spite of that.

 

[MarshallRob]

I know it's hard to pull the shoulda/coulda/woulda card, but the 80's was a decade of dominant NFC teams, very unlike the game played today. If not for the '85 Bears, '86 Giants, and a costly fumble by Roger Craig in the '90 NFC Championship Game, Joe Montana woulda/shoulda/coulda won 7 Super Bowls

The flip side of this is that Montana got to face completely overmatched AFC teams in his Super Bowls.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I know it's hard to pull the shoulda/coulda/woulda card, but the 80's was a decade of dominant NFC teams, very unlike the game played today. If not for the '85 Bears, '86 Giants, and a costly fumble by Roger Craig in the '90 NFC Championship Game, Joe Montana woulda/shoulda/coulda won 7 Super Bowls

The flip side of this is that Montana got to face completely overmatched AFC teams in his Super Bowls.

Fun fact:

The starting QB on three of the four teams Montana's 49ers beat in the Super Bowl were first team All-Pro at least once in their careers.

The other was John Elway.

Montana never had the luxury of getting to a face a team quarterbacked by someone the likes of Jake Delhomme in the Super Bowl.

 

[Tau837]

Here is an article that still has Montana higher: Tom Brady's (Statistical) Place in the Pantheon of NFL QBs

 

[12punch]

I know it's hard to pull the shoulda/coulda/woulda card, but the 80's was a decade of dominant NFC teams, very unlike the game played today. If not for the '85 Bears, '86 Giants, and a costly fumble by Roger Craig in the '90 NFC Championship Game, Joe Montana woulda/shoulda/coulda won 7 Super Bowls

The flip side of this is that Montana got to face completely overmatched AFC teams in his Super Bowls.

Fun fact:

The starting QB on three of the four teams Montana's 49ers beat in the Super Bowl were first team All-Pro at least once in their careers.

The other was John Elway.

Montana never had the luxury of getting to a face a team quarterbacked by someone the likes of Jake Delhomme in the Super Bowl.

Looooooool This Post Is hilarious

 

[moleculo]

Here is a point in Brady's corner:

Montana only started 16 games for 2 of his 15 seasons. This is probably important - you want to talk about all-time great QB, well, being injured a lot won't help your case.

Let's not forget why SF needed a Steve Young.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Here is a point in Brady's corner:

Montana only started 16 games for 2 of his 15 seasons. This is probably important - you want to talk about all-time great QB, well, being injured a lot won't help your case.

Let's not forget why SF needed a Steve Young.

Wow, I never knew that. I never thought to look that particular stat up.

 

[moleculo]

Here is a point in Brady's corner:

Montana only started 16 games for 2 of his 15 seasons. This is probably important - you want to talk about all-time great QB, well, being injured a lot won't help your case.

Let's not forget why SF needed a Steve Young.

Wow, I never knew that. I never thought to look that particular stat up.

yup. To be fair though, it was a different era where you could actually hit the QB, and DB's could lay hands on WR's, making it tougher for them to get open, causing the QB to hold onto the ball longer. Picking a year at random, in 1986 only 5 QB's started 16 games, vs 16 in 2014.

Still, Montana finishing out a season was as pretty rare occurrence.

ETA: it's especially damning when one considers Montana was the first (and only, for most of his career) QB to utilize the quick passing game of the west coast offense.

 

[Tau837]

Here is a point in Brady's corner:

Montana only started 16 games for 2 of his 15 seasons. This is probably important - you want to talk about all-time great QB, well, being injured a lot won't help your case.

Let's not forget why SF needed a Steve Young.

Montana became the starter in 1981 and retired after the 1994 season, so he had 14 possible seasons as a starter. Here is how many starts he missed per season:

0 - 1981, 1982, 1983 (1982 was strike year)

1 - 1984, 1985, 1990

2 - 1987, 1994 (1987 was strike year, with 12 potential games for players who stayed on strike)

3 - 1988, 1989

5 - 1993

8 - 1986

15 - 1992

16 - 1991

He missed 19 starts in his first 10 seasons as a starter. Definitely not great, but an average of just 1.9 starts per season. Then he missed two full seasons before moving to the Chiefs.

As for this being a point in Brady's favor, it is hard to gauge how much of the difference in their games missed due to injury is due to their innate durability and how much is due to the NFL rule changes since Montana played.

 

[Run It Up]

# of seasons a QB led a 500+ pt offense:

Brady: 4
Warner: 3
Brees: 2
P. Manning: 2

 

[Niles Standish]

I know it's hard to pull the shoulda/coulda/woulda card, but the 80's was a decade of dominant NFC teams, very unlike the game played today. If not for the '85 Bears, '86 Giants, and a costly fumble by Roger Craig in the '90 NFC Championship Game, Joe Montana woulda/shoulda/coulda won 7 Super Bowls

The flip side of this is that Montana got to face completely overmatched AFC teams in his Super Bowls.

Fun fact:

The starting QB on three of the four teams Montana's 49ers beat in the Super Bowl were first team All-Pro at least once in their careers.

The other was John Elway.

Montana never had the luxury of getting to a face a team quarterbacked by someone the likes of Jake Delhomme in the Super Bowl.

And Jake Delhomme scored more points against the Pats in the Super Bowl than any of those QBs did against the 49ers,