If the Patriots win the Super Bowl, is Brady the greatest QB of all ti (2 Viewers)

[bostonfred]

Winning a superbowl wouldn't make him better. If he's better, he will be more likely to win the superbowl. But observing a superbowl win or loss would give us a better idea of how good he was.

 

[Jake22]

I would love to see the great T.Brady play back in the 70's with the likes of Bradshaw, Staubach, Tarkenton, Stabler, back when you were able to actually hit a QB. Heck, even guys like Bert Jones and Ken Anderson were pretty damn good too considering they got killed every sunday when they took the field.

Defensive players used to take cheap shots and just give up the 15 yard penalty back then because they didn't care about the 15 yards, it was about making the QB think about alot more than just going through their progresions like today, totally different game then. It was rare for a QB to actually start every game during the season or playoffs, unlike today where you cant even touch a QB without a flag and now a fine to go with it.

I would bet money that Brady's numbers (and alot of these other good QB's today also) don't look the same if he/they played back then...good luck actually finding out which one is the all time greatest with so many rules changes over the years.

 

[bostonfred]

ETA: The notion that Marino "never proved" he could win a Super Bowl gets to the heart of the absurdity of this argument. If Miami stops John Riggins on 4th and 1 in the fourth quarter instead of letting him spring loose for a 43 yard TD, the Dolphins likely win and Marino gets a Super Bowl title and probably one of those magic MVP trophies you seem to think so highly of as well. You are essentially saying that the Dolphins' failure and Riggins success on that play with Marino on the sidelines makes Marino a lesser QB. Total nonsense.

Again, this is a mischaracterization of my point. Marino being close to winning one superbowl isn't all that different from manning being close to never winning one. Both of them had a career worth of opportunities to win, and for the most part, didn't. Based on their skillset, there was some likelihood that they would win a game against an unknown opponent in the playoffs. And in the case of manning, who has a sub :500 playoff record with several losses that fell squarely on his shoulders, the likelihood was not as good as with other qbs. Both of them may have been capable of winning, but it was less likely that manning or marino would win than, say, brady or montana.Case in point: manning winning a superbowl while throwing 3tds and 7 ints in the postseason. It is possible to win a bunch of games in a row while playing like that, but unlikely.

Similarly, the patriots winning the ravens games doesn't mean brady is perfect at beating the ravens. The missed cundiff kick didn't decide that game, either. 60 minutes of play decided that game. Some good, some bad. Both teams missed some opportunities due to bad luck, split second mistakes, or whatever. Brady throwing for 6 tds the previous game meant nothing against the ravens. It was a unique game, with a unique skillset required, and he had a good but not great chance of playing well enough for his team to win the game. He did. Over the course of his career, across all kinds of conditions and types of opponents and home or away or neutral stadiums and games where he got out to a quick lead or gave up a bundle of points early, brady tends to be good enough for his team more often than other qbs, which is why he's been to the afccg more often than he hasn't, and why he's going to his fifth superbowl in ten years, and why his record in those superbowls will be better than 500.

your point that marino may have been good enough to win one if things had worked differently in one game is exactly what im talking about. Whether he won or lost that game, he was still rather less likely to win than brady.

No, no, no, no, no. Those things are true because his team- his ENTIRE team- has more often than not been superior to the opposing team. Part of that is Brady , but not all of it or even close to it. Sometimes it's in spite of Brady, as it was against the Ravens last week. Manning and Brady have virtually identical playoff passing numbers for their careers. They've given their teams the same thing over the long haul. And don't even start with that "game winning drive" nonsense, not right after posting that "60 minutes of play decided the game."This whole concept is ridiculous. Let's just accept that we have different views of football. I believe in a complicated 11 on 11 game with a huge number of factors going into the determination of who thwins and who loses on any given day, and that a bad QB can win a Super Bowl if the right circumstances occur while a great QB can never win one if the wrong circumstances occur. You believe in things like intangibles, and Tebowtime, and Tom Brady the football Jeter, and similar fairy tales. We believe what we believe, and there's really no common ground.

That may be true, but only because you keep building strawmen. Its hard for me to agree to disagree about a point im not making.The qb in football is more important than the wide receiver or the linebacker or the shortstop in baseball or the shooting guard in basketball. Surely you agree with that.

As such, whether you have a good team or not, the quarterback has to play at least fairly well to win games. You can't throw four picks and expect to win (2003 manning), and no matter how good your wrs, rb, tight end, left tackle or center are, if you play crappy, your team will only score three points (2004 manning).

The 2001 patriots were not considered a better team than the 2001 rams. They didn't win on bradys superstar play for 60 minutes. They won because he played 58 minutes of conservative game managing football and a minute and change of go out there and do this. If he had thrown four picks earlier that game, it would have been moot.

In some games, the quarterback clearly doesnt decide the game. In other games, similarly skilled qbs will be a coinflip against one another.

I don't think eli played that much better than alex smith last weekend, but he did play better. Alex smith had an opportunity to play really well and win the game for his team and he didn't. It wasn't surprising. Its alex smith. He isn't that great. If he were, we would be talking 9ers pats. But even playing a so so game (mostly mediocre with a couple flashes), the 49ers came close. That's often the storyline between two fairly evenly matched teams where one has a better qb than the other. It would have taken a better game by smith or a worse game by eli for the 9ers to win.

Manning has some great games against crappy ds in the playoffs, and some crappy games against good ds in the playoffs. That formula doesn't lead to long strings of playoff wins. It can happen, and did, but his game ending pick 6 vs the saints and his 3tds/ 7 ints in 2006 are common to the story of manning in the playoffs.

Brady has some mediocre games and some great games in the playoffs. Overall, that leads to a greater chance of stringing together wins. Its hard to string together four straight playoff wins when you throw four picks in one of them. Brady doesn't do that. Its hard to win a shootout when your defense sucks in the superbowl, but Brady did that.

I don't know how you explain mannings crappy performances if you believe this is just variance. He didn't lead his team to 3 or fewer points once in 2004. Until he met the pats in the playoffs. Was that really just a coincidence in your mind?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Manning has some great games against crappy ds in the playoffs, and some crappy games against good ds in the playoffs. That formula doesn't lead to long strings of playoff wins.

And he has some great games against great Ds in the playoffs, like him tearing the Jets number 1 defense to shreds in the 2009 AFC title game, or doing the same to the Patriots 6th ranked defense in the 2006 AFC title game, or doing the same to the Broncos top 5 defense in both the 2003 and 2004 playoffs. Funny how you always ignore those great games of his when discussing his playoff history. But typical for you. And I suspect you will ignore this post again, just like you ignored my earlier post where I pointed out your LIES about the Patriots 2006 and 2007 teams.

 

[David Yudkin]

I would love to see the great T.Brady play back in the 70's with the likes of Bradshaw, Staubach, Tarkenton, Stabler, back when you were able to actually hit a QB. Heck, even guys like Bert Jones and Ken Anderson were pretty damn good too considering they got killed every sunday when they took the field. Defensive players used to take cheap shots and just give up the 15 yard penalty back then because they didn't care about the 15 yards, it was about making the QB think about alot more than just going through their progresions like today, totally different game then. It was rare for a QB to actually start every game during the season or playoffs, unlike today where you cant even touch a QB without a flag and now a fine to go with it.I would bet money that Brady's numbers (and alot of these other good QB's today also) don't look the same if he/they played back then...good luck actually finding out which one is the all time greatest with so many rules changes over the years.

If you magically send current QBs back in time, their numbers would suffer dramatically. If the time warp goes the other way and 70s QBs get sent forward to today, their numbers would skyrocket. That's why comparing players' raw numbers from different eras is mostly meaningless. Kerry Collins has 16,000 more passing yards than Bart Starr, so that makes Collins better, right?Depending upon each individual, there is a formula to determine how good a player was and where that guy ranks on the food chain. Included in that formula would be performance vs. peers, major awards, career totals, win/loss record, any records set, post season success, number of championships, etc. The real issue is that all of us on the boards will likely have a different way to determine what goes in our individual formula to rank each player.We've seen evidence of that in this thread. Certain people like more pure stats. Others like career longevity. Many others look only at total SBs won. There is no uniform way to determine who's best. Adding in a component on how strong a team, a defense, a coach, a supporting cast, other skill position players, etc. makes it nearly impossible. It's like judging a beauty contest but basing your vote on everything but beauty.

 

[bostonfred]

Manning has some great games against crappy ds in the playoffs, and some crappy games against good ds in the playoffs. That formula doesn't lead to long strings of playoff wins.

And he has some great games against great Ds in the playoffs, like him tearing the Jets number 1 defense to shreds in the 2009 AFC title game, or doing the same to the Patriots 6th ranked defense in the 2006 AFC title game, or doing the same to the Broncos top 5 defense in both the 2003 and 2004 playoffs. Funny how you always ignore those great games of his when discussing his playoff history. But typical for you. And I suspect you will ignore this post again, just like you ignored my earlier post where I pointed out your LIES about the Patriots 2006 and 2007 teams.

I thought you said you were done talking to me about this. You've been nothing but antagonistic in this thread,and I don't really enjoy responding to posts like this one, so im hardly interested in reopening a conversation that you closed off in the past.

 

[Tau837]

truth be told Montana's regular season numbers were not as prolific as some of his peers. It doesn't mean he was worse than them . . . only that he did not often put up huge numbers in the regular season. His regular season numbers were impressive and the Niners posted a few great regular season W-L records.

Well, the problem with the numbers you posted is that they mostly favor compiled statistics. Montana missed enough games in his career that his ranking in the simple system you posted would underrate his performance on the field.Also, not sure about how his pass attempts per game measure up to others on your list. He was only in the top 5 in pass attempts per game 3 times in his career, yet he was top 5 in yards 5 times and top 5 in TDs 7 times. Unsurprising from that info, he was in the top 5 in QB rating 9 times.

But Montana's track record in the post season was not matched by many any other QBs.

Fixed

 

[Ghost Rider]

Manning has some great games against crappy ds in the playoffs, and some crappy games against good ds in the playoffs. That formula doesn't lead to long strings of playoff wins.

And he has some great games against great Ds in the playoffs, like him tearing the Jets number 1 defense to shreds in the 2009 AFC title game, or doing the same to the Patriots 6th ranked defense in the 2006 AFC title game, or doing the same to the Broncos top 5 defense in both the 2003 and 2004 playoffs. Funny how you always ignore those great games of his when discussing his playoff history. But typical for you. And I suspect you will ignore this post again, just like you ignored my earlier post where I pointed out your LIES about the Patriots 2006 and 2007 teams.

I thought you said you were done talking to me about this. You've been nothing but antagonistic in this thread,and I don't really enjoy responding to posts like this one, so im hardly interested in reopening a conversation that you closed off in the past.

That's what I thought. I probably wouldn't like responding to posts that pointed out my lies and distortions either.

 

[David Yudkin]

truth be told Montana's regular season numbers were not as prolific as some of his peers. It doesn't mean he was worse than them . . . only that he did not often put up huge numbers in the regular season. His regular season numbers were impressive and the Niners posted a few great regular season W-L records.

Well, the problem with the numbers you posted is that they mostly favor compiled statistics. Montana missed enough games in his career that his ranking in the simple system you posted would underrate his performance on the field.Also, not sure about how his pass attempts per game measure up to others on your list. He was only in the top 5 in pass attempts per game 3 times in his career, yet he was top 5 in yards 5 times and top 5 in TDs 7 times. Unsurprising from that info, he was in the top 5 in QB rating 9 times.

But Montana's track record in the post season was not matched by many any other QBs.

Fixed

I would argue that Warner's post season numbers are at least worthy of mention with Montana's (at least his individual numbers). Clearly Warner did not win as many titles, but his raw numbers are insane (31 TD in 13 games, 102.8 passer rating, 304 yds/gm, 8.55 y/a). I realize that Warner played in a different era, but those numbers are better than Montana's (although Joe had more wins and rings).As for Montana, he's another one that benefitted from having a well rounded team. SF had a Top 5 defense in terms of points allowed 11 times in the Montana era and a Top 5 rushing team 5 times.

For those looking for situations with fertile ground for success, that certainly would be one of them. Certainly Montana had a lot to do with their success, but a case could be made that even a lesser QB could have also have been successful. I'm not suggesting Montana was not an all time great, but one has to wonder if someone else were leading the change what might have happened.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Yeah, Warner's postseason numbers are absurd. And just think, he could have been a THREE-time Super Bowl winner, but his defense let him down at the end of two of the three Super Bowls he played in (and almost blew the other one, too, holding on by a yard in the Rams/Titans SB). Warner didn't have the longevity to be in the GOAT discussion, but he's probably one of the best postseason quarterbacks ever.

 

[Tau837]

But Montana's track record in the post season was not matched by many any other QBs.

Fixed

I would argue that Warner's post season numbers are at least worthy of mention with Montana's (at least his individual numbers). Clearly Warner did not win as many titles, but his raw numbers are insane (31 TD in 13 games, 102.8 passer rating, 304 yds/gm, 8.55 y/a). I realize that Warner played in a different era, but those numbers are better than Montana's (although Joe had more wins and rings).

Regarding "track record in the postseason":1. IMO Montana's numbers in 23 games from 1981 to 1994 are more impressive than Warner's numbers in 13 games from 1999 to 2009.

2. Montana led his teams to 7 AFC/NFC championship games, compared to 3 for Warner.

3. Montana won 3 Super Bowl MVPs, compared to 1 for Warner.

As I said, IMO no one has matched Montana's postseason track record to date.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

IMO no one has matched Montana's postseason track record to date.

Thats not an opinion, that's the truth.

 

[TobiasFunke]

ETA: The notion that Marino "never proved" he could win a Super Bowl gets to the heart of the absurdity of this argument. If Miami stops John Riggins on 4th and 1 in the fourth quarter instead of letting him spring loose for a 43 yard TD, the Dolphins likely win and Marino gets a Super Bowl title and probably one of those magic MVP trophies you seem to think so highly of as well. You are essentially saying that the Dolphins' failure and Riggins success on that play with Marino on the sidelines makes Marino a lesser QB. Total nonsense.

Again, this is a mischaracterization of my point. Marino being close to winning one superbowl isn't all that different from manning being close to never winning one. Both of them had a career worth of opportunities to win, and for the most part, didn't. Based on their skillset, there was some likelihood that they would win a game against an unknown opponent in the playoffs. And in the case of manning, who has a sub :500 playoff record with several losses that fell squarely on his shoulders, the likelihood was not as good as with other qbs. Both of them may have been capable of winning, but it was less likely that manning or marino would win than, say, brady or montana.Case in point: manning winning a superbowl while throwing 3tds and 7 ints in the postseason. It is possible to win a bunch of games in a row while playing like that, but unlikely.

Similarly, the patriots winning the ravens games doesn't mean brady is perfect at beating the ravens. The missed cundiff kick didn't decide that game, either. 60 minutes of play decided that game. Some good, some bad. Both teams missed some opportunities due to bad luck, split second mistakes, or whatever. Brady throwing for 6 tds the previous game meant nothing against the ravens. It was a unique game, with a unique skillset required, and he had a good but not great chance of playing well enough for his team to win the game. He did. Over the course of his career, across all kinds of conditions and types of opponents and home or away or neutral stadiums and games where he got out to a quick lead or gave up a bundle of points early, brady tends to be good enough for his team more often than other qbs, which is why he's been to the afccg more often than he hasn't, and why he's going to his fifth superbowl in ten years, and why his record in those superbowls will be better than 500.

your point that marino may have been good enough to win one if things had worked differently in one game is exactly what im talking about. Whether he won or lost that game, he was still rather less likely to win than brady.

No, no, no, no, no. Those things are true because his team- his ENTIRE team- has more often than not been superior to the opposing team. Part of that is Brady , but not all of it or even close to it. Sometimes it's in spite of Brady, as it was against the Ravens last week. Manning and Brady have virtually identical playoff passing numbers for their careers. They've given their teams the same thing over the long haul. And don't even start with that "game winning drive" nonsense, not right after posting that "60 minutes of play decided the game."This whole concept is ridiculous. Let's just accept that we have different views of football. I believe in a complicated 11 on 11 game with a huge number of factors going into the determination of who thwins and who loses on any given day, and that a bad QB can win a Super Bowl if the right circumstances occur while a great QB can never win one if the wrong circumstances occur. You believe in things like intangibles, and Tebowtime, and Tom Brady the football Jeter, and similar fairy tales. We believe what we believe, and there's really no common ground.

That may be true, but only because you keep building strawmen. Its hard for me to agree to disagree about a point im not making.The qb in football is more important than the wide receiver or the linebacker or the shortstop in baseball or the shooting guard in basketball. Surely you agree with that.

As such, whether you have a good team or not, the quarterback has to play at least fairly well to win games. You can't throw four picks and expect to win (2003 manning), and no matter how good your wrs, rb, tight end, left tackle or center are, if you play crappy, your team will only score three points (2004 manning).

The 2001 patriots were not considered a better team than the 2001 rams. They didn't win on bradys superstar play for 60 minutes. They won because he played 58 minutes of conservative game managing football and a minute and change of go out there and do this. If he had thrown four picks earlier that game, it would have been moot.

In some games, the quarterback clearly doesnt decide the game. In other games, similarly skilled qbs will be a coinflip against one another.

I don't think eli played that much better than alex smith last weekend, but he did play better. Alex smith had an opportunity to play really well and win the game for his team and he didn't. It wasn't surprising. Its alex smith. He isn't that great. If he were, we would be talking 9ers pats. But even playing a so so game (mostly mediocre with a couple flashes), the 49ers came close. That's often the storyline between two fairly evenly matched teams where one has a better qb than the other. It would have taken a better game by smith or a worse game by eli for the 9ers to win.

Manning has some great games against crappy ds in the playoffs, and some crappy games against good ds in the playoffs. That formula doesn't lead to long strings of playoff wins. It can happen, and did, but his game ending pick 6 vs the saints and his 3tds/ 7 ints in 2006 are common to the story of manning in the playoffs.

Brady has some mediocre games and some great games in the playoffs. Overall, that leads to a greater chance of stringing together wins. Its hard to string together four straight playoff wins when you throw four picks in one of them. Brady doesn't do that. Its hard to win a shootout when your defense sucks in the superbowl, but Brady did that.

I don't know how you explain mannings crappy performances if you believe this is just variance. He didn't lead his team to 3 or fewer points once in 2004. Until he met the pats in the playoffs. Was that really just a coincidence in your mind?

Mostly coincidence, mixed with the higher level of competition. If he'd played 16 defenses as good as the Pats in the regular season it probably would've happened then too, maybe multiple times. Just like of the 2007 Pats had played the Giants 16 times in the regular season they wouldn't have gone 16-0 and Brady wouldn't have chuckled at the notion that the Pats would only score 17 points in the Super Bowl.If I wanted to I could cherry pick things that Brady has done wrong in the Super Bowl that Manning hasn't. Bottom line, they have virtually identical career playoff numbers. End of story.

 

[bostonfred]

ETA: The notion that Marino "never proved" he could win a Super Bowl gets to the heart of the absurdity of this argument. If Miami stops John Riggins on 4th and 1 in the fourth quarter instead of letting him spring loose for a 43 yard TD, the Dolphins likely win and Marino gets a Super Bowl title and probably one of those magic MVP trophies you seem to think so highly of as well. You are essentially saying that the Dolphins' failure and Riggins success on that play with Marino on the sidelines makes Marino a lesser QB. Total nonsense.

Again, this is a mischaracterization of my point. Marino being close to winning one superbowl isn't all that different from manning being close to never winning one. Both of them had a career worth of opportunities to win, and for the most part, didn't. Based on their skillset, there was some likelihood that they would win a game against an unknown opponent in the playoffs. And in the case of manning, who has a sub :500 playoff record with several losses that fell squarely on his shoulders, the likelihood was not as good as with other qbs. Both of them may have been capable of winning, but it was less likely that manning or marino would win than, say, brady or montana.Case in point: manning winning a superbowl while throwing 3tds and 7 ints in the postseason. It is possible to win a bunch of games in a row while playing like that, but unlikely.

Similarly, the patriots winning the ravens games doesn't mean brady is perfect at beating the ravens. The missed cundiff kick didn't decide that game, either. 60 minutes of play decided that game. Some good, some bad. Both teams missed some opportunities due to bad luck, split second mistakes, or whatever. Brady throwing for 6 tds the previous game meant nothing against the ravens. It was a unique game, with a unique skillset required, and he had a good but not great chance of playing well enough for his team to win the game. He did. Over the course of his career, across all kinds of conditions and types of opponents and home or away or neutral stadiums and games where he got out to a quick lead or gave up a bundle of points early, brady tends to be good enough for his team more often than other qbs, which is why he's been to the afccg more often than he hasn't, and why he's going to his fifth superbowl in ten years, and why his record in those superbowls will be better than 500.

your point that marino may have been good enough to win one if things had worked differently in one game is exactly what im talking about. Whether he won or lost that game, he was still rather less likely to win than brady.

No, no, no, no, no. Those things are true because his team- his ENTIRE team- has more often than not been superior to the opposing team. Part of that is Brady , but not all of it or even close to it. Sometimes it's in spite of Brady, as it was against the Ravens last week. Manning and Brady have virtually identical playoff passing numbers for their careers. They've given their teams the same thing over the long haul. And don't even start with that "game winning drive" nonsense, not right after posting that "60 minutes of play decided the game."This whole concept is ridiculous. Let's just accept that we have different views of football. I believe in a complicated 11 on 11 game with a huge number of factors going into the determination of who thwins and who loses on any given day, and that a bad QB can win a Super Bowl if the right circumstances occur while a great QB can never win one if the wrong circumstances occur. You believe in things like intangibles, and Tebowtime, and Tom Brady the football Jeter, and similar fairy tales. We believe what we believe, and there's really no common ground.

That may be true, but only because you keep building strawmen. Its hard for me to agree to disagree about a point im not making.The qb in football is more important than the wide receiver or the linebacker or the shortstop in baseball or the shooting guard in basketball. Surely you agree with that.

As such, whether you have a good team or not, the quarterback has to play at least fairly well to win games. You can't throw four picks and expect to win (2003 manning), and no matter how good your wrs, rb, tight end, left tackle or center are, if you play crappy, your team will only score three points (2004 manning).

The 2001 patriots were not considered a better team than the 2001 rams. They didn't win on bradys superstar play for 60 minutes. They won because he played 58 minutes of conservative game managing football and a minute and change of go out there and do this. If he had thrown four picks earlier that game, it would have been moot.

In some games, the quarterback clearly doesnt decide the game. In other games, similarly skilled qbs will be a coinflip against one another.

I don't think eli played that much better than alex smith last weekend, but he did play better. Alex smith had an opportunity to play really well and win the game for his team and he didn't. It wasn't surprising. Its alex smith. He isn't that great. If he were, we would be talking 9ers pats. But even playing a so so game (mostly mediocre with a couple flashes), the 49ers came close. That's often the storyline between two fairly evenly matched teams where one has a better qb than the other. It would have taken a better game by smith or a worse game by eli for the 9ers to win.

Manning has some great games against crappy ds in the playoffs, and some crappy games against good ds in the playoffs. That formula doesn't lead to long strings of playoff wins. It can happen, and did, but his game ending pick 6 vs the saints and his 3tds/ 7 ints in 2006 are common to the story of manning in the playoffs.

Brady has some mediocre games and some great games in the playoffs. Overall, that leads to a greater chance of stringing together wins. Its hard to string together four straight playoff wins when you throw four picks in one of them. Brady doesn't do that. Its hard to win a shootout when your defense sucks in the superbowl, but Brady did that.

I don't know how you explain mannings crappy performances if you believe this is just variance. He didn't lead his team to 3 or fewer points once in 2004. Until he met the pats in the playoffs. Was that really just a coincidence in your mind?

Mostly coincidence, mixed with the higher level of competition. If he'd played 16 defenses as good as the Pats in the regular season it probably would've happened then too, maybe multiple times. Just like of the 2007 Pats had played the Giants 16 times in the regular season they wouldn't have gone 16-0 and Brady wouldn't have chuckled at the notion that the Pats would only score 17 points in the Super Bowl.If I wanted to I could cherry pick things that Brady has done wrong in the Super Bowl that Manning hasn't. Bottom line, they have virtually identical career playoff numbers. End of story.

Then you seem to agree with me. Brady putting up "just" 17 points in the superbowl, manning putting up just three points, etc., are expected outcomes against a large enoug sample size against playoff caliber defenses. And if you line up three or four games against playoff caliber defenses, manning is more likely to hit that stinker that derails their superbowl run than brady. Moreover, if you listen to any nfl coach or player, they will tell you that they do things a little differently to prepare for a playoff game. Maybe nothing drastic, but they work harder to exploit their opponents' weaknesses and are more focused on game prep for an individual game as opposed to working on fixing their own problems. So if a qb has exploitable tendencies, they are out there in the open in the playoffs and exploited more than in the regular season by some unknown amount.

Which leads back to my point: mannings team was built more around him, so the onus was on him to carry the load more than brady. But his exploitable tendencies made it easier to beat him in the playoffs by forcing him to make the big mistake. Manning had higher highs in his playoff games (not counting bradys 6td performance against the broncos), but brady had a much higher ceiling.

That doesnt mean brady was unexploitable. When the ravens crushed the pats a couple years ago, they exploited bradys tendency to fumble. But the cases where brady was held in check for an entire game, or where he singlehandedly cost his team a win, are much fewer and further between than manning.

That is part of what i mean by a playoff skillset. and from your comments, you seem to agree that it exists, even if you don't want to call it that.

 

[gianmarco]

But Montana's track record in the post season was not matched by many any other QBs.

Fixed

I would argue that Warner's post season numbers are at least worthy of mention with Montana's (at least his individual numbers). Clearly Warner did not win as many titles, but his raw numbers are insane (31 TD in 13 games, 102.8 passer rating, 304 yds/gm, 8.55 y/a). I realize that Warner played in a different era, but those numbers are better than Montana's (although Joe had more wins and rings).

Regarding "track record in the postseason":1. IMO Montana's numbers in 23 games from 1981 to 1994 are more impressive than Warner's numbers in 13 games from 1999 to 2009.

2. Montana led his teams to 7 AFC/NFC championship games, compared to 3 for Warner.

3. Montana won 3 Super Bowl MVPs, compared to 1 for Warner.

As I said, IMO no one has matched Montana's postseason track record to date.

1. Except Brady will be 17-5 in 22 games vs. Montana's 16-7.

2. Except Brady led his teams to 6 AFC championship games

3. Except Brady will also have won 3 Super Bowl MVPs if he can win one this weekend

And he's done the above in 3 fewer seasons than Montana with a chance to add to it.

Sorry, but I disagree that no one has matched Montana in the post-season. Brady has certainly matched him if he were to win it this weekend and actually surpassed in certain areas. And yes, I know his actual QB #'s are lower than Montana in the post-season, but Montana's are lower than Warner's, so.......

 

[TobiasFunke]

ETA: The notion that Marino "never proved" he could win a Super Bowl gets to the heart of the absurdity of this argument. If Miami stops John Riggins on 4th and 1 in the fourth quarter instead of letting him spring loose for a 43 yard TD, the Dolphins likely win and Marino gets a Super Bowl title and probably one of those magic MVP trophies you seem to think so highly of as well. You are essentially saying that the Dolphins' failure and Riggins success on that play with Marino on the sidelines makes Marino a lesser QB. Total nonsense.

Again, this is a mischaracterization of my point. Marino being close to winning one superbowl isn't all that different from manning being close to never winning one. Both of them had a career worth of opportunities to win, and for the most part, didn't. Based on their skillset, there was some likelihood that they would win a game against an unknown opponent in the playoffs. And in the case of manning, who has a sub :500 playoff record with several losses that fell squarely on his shoulders, the likelihood was not as good as with other qbs. Both of them may have been capable of winning, but it was less likely that manning or marino would win than, say, brady or montana.Case in point: manning winning a superbowl while throwing 3tds and 7 ints in the postseason. It is possible to win a bunch of games in a row while playing like that, but unlikely.

Similarly, the patriots winning the ravens games doesn't mean brady is perfect at beating the ravens. The missed cundiff kick didn't decide that game, either. 60 minutes of play decided that game. Some good, some bad. Both teams missed some opportunities due to bad luck, split second mistakes, or whatever. Brady throwing for 6 tds the previous game meant nothing against the ravens. It was a unique game, with a unique skillset required, and he had a good but not great chance of playing well enough for his team to win the game. He did. Over the course of his career, across all kinds of conditions and types of opponents and home or away or neutral stadiums and games where he got out to a quick lead or gave up a bundle of points early, brady tends to be good enough for his team more often than other qbs, which is why he's been to the afccg more often than he hasn't, and why he's going to his fifth superbowl in ten years, and why his record in those superbowls will be better than 500.

your point that marino may have been good enough to win one if things had worked differently in one game is exactly what im talking about. Whether he won or lost that game, he was still rather less likely to win than brady.

No, no, no, no, no. Those things are true because his team- his ENTIRE team- has more often than not been superior to the opposing team. Part of that is Brady , but not all of it or even close to it. Sometimes it's in spite of Brady, as it was against the Ravens last week. Manning and Brady have virtually identical playoff passing numbers for their careers. They've given their teams the same thing over the long haul. And don't even start with that "game winning drive" nonsense, not right after posting that "60 minutes of play decided the game."This whole concept is ridiculous. Let's just accept that we have different views of football. I believe in a complicated 11 on 11 game with a huge number of factors going into the determination of who thwins and who loses on any given day, and that a bad QB can win a Super Bowl if the right circumstances occur while a great QB can never win one if the wrong circumstances occur. You believe in things like intangibles, and Tebowtime, and Tom Brady the football Jeter, and similar fairy tales. We believe what we believe, and there's really no common ground.

That may be true, but only because you keep building strawmen. Its hard for me to agree to disagree about a point im not making.The qb in football is more important than the wide receiver or the linebacker or the shortstop in baseball or the shooting guard in basketball. Surely you agree with that.

As such, whether you have a good team or not, the quarterback has to play at least fairly well to win games. You can't throw four picks and expect to win (2003 manning), and no matter how good your wrs, rb, tight end, left tackle or center are, if you play crappy, your team will only score three points (2004 manning).

The 2001 patriots were not considered a better team than the 2001 rams. They didn't win on bradys superstar play for 60 minutes. They won because he played 58 minutes of conservative game managing football and a minute and change of go out there and do this. If he had thrown four picks earlier that game, it would have been moot.

In some games, the quarterback clearly doesnt decide the game. In other games, similarly skilled qbs will be a coinflip against one another.

I don't think eli played that much better than alex smith last weekend, but he did play better. Alex smith had an opportunity to play really well and win the game for his team and he didn't. It wasn't surprising. Its alex smith. He isn't that great. If he were, we would be talking 9ers pats. But even playing a so so game (mostly mediocre with a couple flashes), the 49ers came close. That's often the storyline between two fairly evenly matched teams where one has a better qb than the other. It would have taken a better game by smith or a worse game by eli for the 9ers to win.

Manning has some great games against crappy ds in the playoffs, and some crappy games against good ds in the playoffs. That formula doesn't lead to long strings of playoff wins. It can happen, and did, but his game ending pick 6 vs the saints and his 3tds/ 7 ints in 2006 are common to the story of manning in the playoffs.

Brady has some mediocre games and some great games in the playoffs. Overall, that leads to a greater chance of stringing together wins. Its hard to string together four straight playoff wins when you throw four picks in one of them. Brady doesn't do that. Its hard to win a shootout when your defense sucks in the superbowl, but Brady did that.

I don't know how you explain mannings crappy performances if you believe this is just variance. He didn't lead his team to 3 or fewer points once in 2004. Until he met the pats in the playoffs. Was that really just a coincidence in your mind?

Mostly coincidence, mixed with the higher level of competition. If he'd played 16 defenses as good as the Pats in the regular season it probably would've happened then too, maybe multiple times. Just like of the 2007 Pats had played the Giants 16 times in the regular season they wouldn't have gone 16-0 and Brady wouldn't have chuckled at the notion that the Pats would only score 17 points in the Super Bowl.If I wanted to I could cherry pick things that Brady has done wrong in the Super Bowl that Manning hasn't. Bottom line, they have virtually identical career playoff numbers. End of story.

Then you seem to agree with me. Brady putting up "just" 17 points in the superbowl, manning putting up just three points, etc., are expected outcomes against a large enoug sample size against playoff caliber defenses. And if you line up three or four games against playoff caliber defenses, manning is more likely to hit that stinker that derails their superbowl run than brady. Moreover, if you listen to any nfl coach or player, they will tell you that they do things a little differently to prepare for a playoff game. Maybe nothing drastic, but they work harder to exploit their opponents' weaknesses and are more focused on game prep for an individual game as opposed to working on fixing their own problems. So if a qb has exploitable tendencies, they are out there in the open in the playoffs and exploited more than in the regular season by some unknown amount.

Which leads back to my point: mannings team was built more around him, so the onus was on him to carry the load more than brady. But his exploitable tendencies made it easier to beat him in the playoffs by forcing him to make the big mistake. Manning had higher highs in his playoff games (not counting bradys 6td performance against the broncos), but brady had a much higher ceiling.

That doesnt mean brady was unexploitable. When the ravens crushed the pats a couple years ago, they exploited bradys tendency to fumble. But the cases where brady was held in check for an entire game, or where he singlehandedly cost his team a win, are much fewer and further between than manning.

That is part of what i mean by a playoff skillset. and from your comments, you seem to agree that it exists, even if you don't want to call it that.

Come on. You listed two stinkers for Manning. That's a bit of an overstatement, don't you think? Brady's got three playoff games with Sub-60 passer ratings on his resume, two of which his team somehow won. Manning has three such games on his resume, one of which his team somehow won. I'll grant you that Manning's three terrible games are worse than two of Brady's three terrible games, but that's really splitting hairs. They were both indisputably awful in all three. Manning, by the way, hasn't had a stinker since 2006. Brady has had two in his last four playoff games. So if you think there's some special "playoff" skillset that one has and the other doesn't, the results and stats show that you're just plain wrong. All guys play well some times and poorly other times, and they all tend to play poorly more often against tougher competition. It's that simple.

By the way, I don't know why you think I agree with you. Playoff opponents are on average better than regular season opponents- that's an indisputable fact. But the stuff that beats them in the regular season is the same stuff that beats them in the postseason. Same game, same variance in performance, same everything.

 

[Modog814]

Then you seem to agree with me. Brady putting up "just" 17 points in the superbowl, manning putting up just three points, etc., are expected outcomes against a large enoug sample size against playoff caliber defenses. And if you line up three or four games against playoff caliber defenses, manning is more likely to hit that stinker that derails their superbowl run than brady. Moreover, if you listen to any nfl coach or player, they will tell you that they do things a little differently to prepare for a playoff game. Maybe nothing drastic, but they work harder to exploit their opponents' weaknesses and are more focused on game prep for an individual game as opposed to working on fixing their own problems. So if a qb has exploitable tendencies, they are out there in the open in the playoffs and exploited more than in the regular season by some unknown amount.

Which leads back to my point: mannings team was built more around him, so the onus was on him to carry the load more than brady. But his exploitable tendencies made it easier to beat him in the playoffs by forcing him to make the big mistake. Manning had higher highs in his playoff games (not counting bradys 6td performance against the broncos), but brady had a much higher ceiling.

That doesnt mean brady was unexploitable. When the ravens crushed the pats a couple years ago, they exploited bradys tendency to fumble. But the cases where brady was held in check for an entire game, or where he singlehandedly cost his team a win, are much fewer and further between than manning.

That is part of what i mean by a playoff skillset. and from your comments, you seem to agree that it exists, even if you don't want to call it that.

I'm not really sure it's fair nor accurate to draw this conclusion.

 

[bostonfred]

Manning is 7-8 in the postseason. Those eight losses include:

- game killing pick six in the superbowl

- four int game against new england

- 3 point game against new england

- 0 point game against new york

- game against pittsburgh that he "lost" three different ways, throwing a bad pick, taking a bad sack, and going for a deep ball on his last offensive play when they were outside field goal range.

His 3 td vs 7 int peformance in their superbowl run, including a 3int game against the chiefs, also sucked.

To be fair, manning almost singlehandedly beat the chiefs in a playoff shootout, and had some big games in back to back years against the broncos. But that doesn't create long win streaks.

We can point to some bad games by brady, too. Brady almost lost the 2001 afccg and the 2006 division round to the chargers with late game turnovers, one overturned by the tuck rule and one a pick that troy brown wrestled back from the d back. His game against the ravens a couple years ago wasn't stellar. And while he has some monster games like manning, including his superbowl shootout vs the panthers and the 6 td game against thebroncos, manning has looked dominant in the playoffs... until he hasn't.

And that's precisely the issue with manning. He is undoubtedly great, but his game killing individual performances in the playoffs keep his team from winning. His only superbowl win was, with the exception of one half of football against the depleted patriot secondary, won in spite of him, not because of him.

It is fair to say that brady didn't singlehandedly beat the rams, or the eagles, or of course the raiders, but he also didn't singlehandedly lose those games. And his performances, while only occasionally eye popping stat-wise, were always designed to win the game by beating the other team, playing mistake free football, and forcing their opponent to make mistakes. When he had to take the restrictor plate off, he proved up to the challenge repeatedly. That is how he won those superbowls, and that is something manning never did - even when his defense was carrying him in 2006.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Manning is 7-8 in the postseason. Those eight losses include:

- game killing pick six in the superbowl

- four int game against new england

- 3 point game against new england

- 0 point game against new york

- game against pittsburgh that he "lost" three different ways, throwing a bad pick, taking a bad sack, and going for a deep ball on his last offensive play when they were outside field goal range.

His 3 td vs 7 int peformance in their superbowl run, including a 3int game against the chiefs, also sucked.

To be fair, manning almost singlehandedly beat the chiefs in a playoff shootout, and had some big games in back to back years against the broncos. But that doesn't create long win streaks.

We can point to some bad games by brady, too. Brady almost lost the 2001 afccg and the 2006 division round to the chargers with late game turnovers, one overturned by the tuck rule and one a pick that troy brown wrestled back from the d back. His game against the ravens a couple years ago wasn't stellar. And while he has some monster games like manning, including his superbowl shootout vs the panthers and the 6 td game against thebroncos, manning has looked dominant in the playoffs... until he hasn't.

And that's precisely the issue with manning. He is undoubtedly great, but his game killing individual performances in the playoffs keep his team from winning. His only superbowl win was, with the exception of one half of football against the depleted patriot secondary, won in spite of him, not because of him.

It is fair to say that brady didn't singlehandedly beat the rams, or the eagles, or of course the raiders, but he also didn't singlehandedly lose those games. And his performances, while only occasionally eye popping stat-wise, were always designed to win the game by beating the other team, playing mistake free football, and forcing their opponent to make mistakes. When he had to take the restrictor plate off, he proved up to the challenge repeatedly. That is how he won those superbowls, and that is something manning never did - even when his defense was carrying him in 2006.

The first sentence of your post tells me I don't need to read the rest.Manning is not 7-8 in the playoffs. The team he plays on is 7-8 since he joined them as the #1 overall pick (i.e. they were absolutely terrible when he joined them).

Your failure to understand the difference between a team's record and a QB's performance tells me that there's really no need to continue this conversation. You'll simply keep ignoring the points that others make and cherry-picking the worst of Manning, as if Manning's failures have anything to do with Brady's place in history to begin with (they don't except to the extent that anyone is arguing for Manning as one of the players superior to Brady in the GOAT rankings).

Also your cherry picking is actually painful to read. You discredit manning both for singlehandedly costing his team games and for poor play even if it didn't cost his team games, while giving Brady a pass in both respects. Its complete nonsense, not at all rational or evenhanded. Its homerism at its most obvious and ridiculous.

You're a good enough poster that you warrant a response as to why I don't want to continue the conversation, so this is it. Cheers, and enjoy rooting for your team in the Super Bowl. Or your player. Whichever approach you prefer, I guess.

 

[Phlash]

I like how Brady can QB 3 SB winning teams, put up monstrous numbers year after year, and be the complete focal point of the offense as of late and people will still try to minimize his accomplishments.He's the GOAT. What other QBs resume even comes close to his combination of winning + stats?

He's only put up monstrous numbers for four years, champ. And only in one of those four years did he put up league-leading numbers, which makes you question whether they actually are monstrous or just a product of being a good QB in a pass-first offense during a pass-friendly era, like say Drew Brees.Like I said earlier, he's been Terry Bradshaw for six years and (maybe, arguably) Dan Marino for four. That's pretty awesome IMO, certainly enough to rank him among the great QBs of all time. The problem comes when Pats homers pretend he's been Terry Bradshaw + Dan Marino for ten years. That's simply not true. It's as dumb as the people saying that Favre was obviously much better than Brady, except that those people are probably kidding and Pats homers appear to be serious.

I can agree, but while his numbers early on weren't nearly as prolific as they are now, he did lead the league in passing TDs in 2002 (with a measly 28, admittedly low but rules were different then) and yards in 2005 (again, a measly 4110 but numbers have skyrocketed since then). While not monstrous, he was already leading the league in stats early on. Like you said, its not until now that he's actually exploded with his numbers.Also, just to correct you, the offense has been pass first every season except the one year that Corey Dillon blew up for 1600 yards. I give a lot of credit to Brady and the coaches (who Brady works closely with) in trying to get the most out of every play on every drive. The Patriots have had pretty excellent offensive playcalling and gameplans for the past few years (it stagnated for a couple years in the middle after Weis left, but its improved tremendously under McDaniels and Bill O'Brian).The reason Patriots fans get serious, by the way, is because when you root for a team and a group of people try to minimize the accomplishments of everyone involved with the team you root for, and you're a fan, you better damn well defend that team even if it looks like they may be fishing. Gotta rep the team you root for.

 

[bostonfred]

The first sentence of your post tells me I don't need to read the rest.Manning is not 7-8 in the playoffs. The team he plays on is 7-8 since he joined them as the #1 overall pick (i.e. they were absolutely terrible when he joined them). Your failure to understand the difference between a team's record and a QB's performance tells me that there's really no need to continue this conversation.

I specifically addressed all of this in the post you didn't read, but I appreciate you taking the time to let me know you didn't read it. I addressed the points you made in previous posts, like questioining me for saying manning only had two bad games. I discussed bradys bad games, too, despite your post saying that I ignored them. But at the end of the day, its probably easier to just call it homerism than to read it. I appreciate that you think im a good enough poster, and I enjoy your posts as well.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

no

1. Marino

2. Manning

 

[Tau837]

But Montana's track record in the post season was not matched by many any other QBs.

Fixed

I would argue that Warner's post season numbers are at least worthy of mention with Montana's (at least his individual numbers). Clearly Warner did not win as many titles, but his raw numbers are insane (31 TD in 13 games, 102.8 passer rating, 304 yds/gm, 8.55 y/a). I realize that Warner played in a different era, but those numbers are better than Montana's (although Joe had more wins and rings).

Regarding "track record in the postseason":1. IMO Montana's numbers in 23 games from 1981 to 1994 are more impressive than Warner's numbers in 13 games from 1999 to 2009.

2. Montana led his teams to 7 AFC/NFC championship games, compared to 3 for Warner.

3. Montana won 3 Super Bowl MVPs, compared to 1 for Warner.

As I said, IMO no one has matched Montana's postseason track record to date.

1. Except Brady will be 17-5 in 22 games vs. Montana's 16-7.

2. Except Brady led his teams to 6 AFC championship games

3. Except Brady will also have won 3 Super Bowl MVPs if he can win one this weekend

And he's done the above in 3 fewer seasons than Montana with a chance to add to it.

Sorry, but I disagree that no one has matched Montana in the post-season. Brady has certainly matched him if he were to win it this weekend and actually surpassed in certain areas. And yes, I know his actual QB #'s are lower than Montana in the post-season, but Montana's are lower than Warner's, so.......

Sorry, disagree completely. 7 AFC/NFC championship games > 6 AFC championship games. No match there, regardless of this weekend's outcome. Brady can at best match Montana in Super Bowl wins and/or SBMVPs if he wins this weekend.The statistics currently favor Montana by a lot:

Brady: 472/752 (62.8%) for 5009 passing yards (6.66 ypa), 36 passing TDs, 19 Interceptions, 87.6 passer rating, 53/80/3 rushing

Montana: 460/734 (62.7%) for 5772 passing yards (7.86 ypa), 45 passing TDs, 21 interceptions, 95.6 passer rating, 63/314/2 rushing

It's not close. Brady has more combined passing and rushing attempts, yet Montana has roughly 1000 more total yards, 8 more total TDs, and a much better passer rating. And Montana achieved his numbers about 20 years earlier, which is even more impressive.

Already addressed Warner. It's not close between him and Montana in terms of "postseason track record", which is what I responded to originally on this tangent.

 

[gianmarco]

But Montana's track record in the post season was not matched by many any other QBs.

Fixed

I would argue that Warner's post season numbers are at least worthy of mention with Montana's (at least his individual numbers). Clearly Warner did not win as many titles, but his raw numbers are insane (31 TD in 13 games, 102.8 passer rating, 304 yds/gm, 8.55 y/a). I realize that Warner played in a different era, but those numbers are better than Montana's (although Joe had more wins and rings).

Regarding "track record in the postseason":1. IMO Montana's numbers in 23 games from 1981 to 1994 are more impressive than Warner's numbers in 13 games from 1999 to 2009.

2. Montana led his teams to 7 AFC/NFC championship games, compared to 3 for Warner.

3. Montana won 3 Super Bowl MVPs, compared to 1 for Warner.

As I said, IMO no one has matched Montana's postseason track record to date.

1. Except Brady will be 17-5 in 22 games vs. Montana's 16-7.

2. Except Brady led his teams to 6 AFC championship games

3. Except Brady will also have won 3 Super Bowl MVPs if he can win one this weekend

And he's done the above in 3 fewer seasons than Montana with a chance to add to it.

Sorry, but I disagree that no one has matched Montana in the post-season. Brady has certainly matched him if he were to win it this weekend and actually surpassed in certain areas. And yes, I know his actual QB #'s are lower than Montana in the post-season, but Montana's are lower than Warner's, so.......

Sorry, disagree completely. 7 AFC/NFC championship games > 6 AFC championship games. No match there, regardless of this weekend's outcome. Brady can at best match Montana in Super Bowl wins and/or SBMVPs if he wins this weekend.The statistics currently favor Montana by a lot:

Brady: 472/752 (62.8%) for 5009 passing yards (6.66 ypa), 36 passing TDs, 19 Interceptions, 87.6 passer rating, 53/80/3 rushing

Montana: 460/734 (62.7%) for 5772 passing yards (7.86 ypa), 45 passing TDs, 21 interceptions, 95.6 passer rating, 63/314/2 rushing

It's not close. Brady has more combined passing and rushing attempts, yet Montana has roughly 1000 more total yards, 8 more total TDs, and a much better passer rating. And Montana achieved his numbers about 20 years earlier, which is even more impressive.

Already addressed Warner. It's not close between him and Montana in terms of "postseason track record", which is what I responded to originally on this tangent.

Seriously? 6 championship games vs. 7 championship games is "no match"? Really? I'd say when you factor in that Brady made it to 5 Super Bowls vs. 4 Super Bowls, I'd consider that stat a wash. 4-1 in the Super Bowl is > 4-0 in the Super Bowl. And that's not to mention that Brady has 3 more years to make 1 more championship game to match Montana.You ignore the fact that Brady has a higher winning % in the playoffs.

So, assuming he wins Super Bowl MVP (which is a big assumption, granted), he will have tied him in that, essentially tied him in Championship Games/Super Bowl appearances, and have a higher winning %.

I've already granted that Montana has better passing stats, but if that's what we're using to determine the best postseason QB, Warner wins that hands down regardless of records.

Even if you want to look at that compilation and say Montana is better, which I think there's an argument for, to say Brady "isn't close" is absurd.

 

[womb]

I would love to see the great T.Brady play back in the 70's with the likes of Bradshaw, Staubach, Tarkenton, Stabler, back when you were able to actually hit a QB. Heck, even guys like Bert Jones and Ken Anderson were pretty damn good too considering they got killed every sunday when they took the field. Defensive players used to take cheap shots and just give up the 15 yard penalty back then because they didn't care about the 15 yards, it was about making the QB think about alot more than just going through their progresions like today, totally different game then. It was rare for a QB to actually start every game during the season or playoffs, unlike today where you cant even touch a QB without a flag and now a fine to go with it.I would bet money that Brady's numbers (and alot of these other good QB's today also) don't look the same if he/they played back then...good luck actually finding out which one is the all time greatest with so many rules changes over the years.

I subscribe to the school of thought that believes that NFL today has better talent overall today than in the past.There were articles on 49ers these recent days regarding how the lack of back-up talent in the return game cost them the chance to play at the superbowl. I agree with that.When people talk of the past, except for the Steel Curtain, it is mostly about individuals. I happen to believe that there certainly was talent, but it did not run 53 deep. Not as much as today's football. Therefore I believe that these great individuals who had undeniable skillsets had better chances of attaining better results for their teams - regardless of the rules being more physical rules or not. There was more of that mismatch to take advantage of. I believe Tom Brady is as good as they come. My personal opinion. I respect others who do not believe that way. The thing that I love about Tom Brady more than his delivery is his read of the field both prior and after the snap. He excels on those mismatches. That is his bread and butter. He made use of spreading spreading the ball around, he made use of the physicality of Welker and used him as a running back with short passes, he made use of the spreed of Randy Moss for the long ball, he made use of the Boston TE party against the slow LB coverage, etc. The dude looks at the field, revises the play with an audible, the ball gets snapped, and he tries to find a mismatch. Now, none of this would have mattered if he were unable to deliver. IMHO, he does deliver. People can debate on how well he delivers, which I think is more than fair. Yet putting the dude in a time machine back to the 70s, I think he would have accomplished more, as that environment would have provided him more with that bread and butter of mismatches regardless of the level of physicality.

 

[Tau837]

But Montana's track record in the post season was not matched by many any other QBs.

Fixed

I would argue that Warner's post season numbers are at least worthy of mention with Montana's (at least his individual numbers). Clearly Warner did not win as many titles, but his raw numbers are insane (31 TD in 13 games, 102.8 passer rating, 304 yds/gm, 8.55 y/a). I realize that Warner played in a different era, but those numbers are better than Montana's (although Joe had more wins and rings).

Regarding "track record in the postseason":1. IMO Montana's numbers in 23 games from 1981 to 1994 are more impressive than Warner's numbers in 13 games from 1999 to 2009.

2. Montana led his teams to 7 AFC/NFC championship games, compared to 3 for Warner.

3. Montana won 3 Super Bowl MVPs, compared to 1 for Warner.

As I said, IMO no one has matched Montana's postseason track record to date.

1. Except Brady will be 17-5 in 22 games vs. Montana's 16-7.

2. Except Brady led his teams to 6 AFC championship games

3. Except Brady will also have won 3 Super Bowl MVPs if he can win one this weekend

And he's done the above in 3 fewer seasons than Montana with a chance to add to it.

Sorry, but I disagree that no one has matched Montana in the post-season. Brady has certainly matched him if he were to win it this weekend and actually surpassed in certain areas. And yes, I know his actual QB #'s are lower than Montana in the post-season, but Montana's are lower than Warner's, so.......

Sorry, disagree completely. 7 AFC/NFC championship games > 6 AFC championship games. No match there, regardless of this weekend's outcome. Brady can at best match Montana in Super Bowl wins and/or SBMVPs if he wins this weekend.The statistics currently favor Montana by a lot:

Brady: 472/752 (62.8%) for 5009 passing yards (6.66 ypa), 36 passing TDs, 19 Interceptions, 87.6 passer rating, 53/80/3 rushing

Montana: 460/734 (62.7%) for 5772 passing yards (7.86 ypa), 45 passing TDs, 21 interceptions, 95.6 passer rating, 63/314/2 rushing

It's not close. Brady has more combined passing and rushing attempts, yet Montana has roughly 1000 more total yards, 8 more total TDs, and a much better passer rating. And Montana achieved his numbers about 20 years earlier, which is even more impressive.

Already addressed Warner. It's not close between him and Montana in terms of "postseason track record", which is what I responded to originally on this tangent.

Seriously? 6 championship games vs. 7 championship games is "no match"? Really? I'd say when you factor in that Brady made it to 5 Super Bowls vs. 4 Super Bowls, I'd consider that stat a wash. 4-1 in the Super Bowl is > 4-0 in the Super Bowl. And that's not to mention that Brady has 3 more years to make 1 more championship game to match Montana.You ignore the fact that Brady has a higher winning % in the playoffs.

So, assuming he wins Super Bowl MVP (which is a big assumption, granted), he will have tied him in that, essentially tied him in Championship Games/Super Bowl appearances, and have a higher winning %.

I've already granted that Montana has better passing stats, but if that's what we're using to determine the best postseason QB, Warner wins that hands down regardless of records.

Even if you want to look at that compilation and say Montana is better, which I think there's an argument for, to say Brady "isn't close" is absurd.

I said three things:1. No one has matched Montana's postseason track record.

2. Warner's postseason track record isn't close to Montana's.

3. Brady's postseason numbers aren't close to Montana's.

You seem to be mixing those statements together. I haven't said Brady's overall postseason track record isn't close to Montana's. But he hasn't matched it.

Yes, the extra championship game means a lot when put into context. Montana did it with two franchises, Brady has not done it without Belichick. Edge Montana.

And I don't care about Brady having more years to do more. This entire tangent has been about the here and now. We can revisit in the future if Brady adds to his postseason track record. The Pats winning the Super Bowl and/or Brady winning SBMVP will certainly draw him closer.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

But Montana's track record in the post season was not matched by many any other QBs.

Fixed

I would argue that Warner's post season numbers are at least worthy of mention with Montana's (at least his individual numbers). Clearly Warner did not win as many titles, but his raw numbers are insane (31 TD in 13 games, 102.8 passer rating, 304 yds/gm, 8.55 y/a). I realize that Warner played in a different era, but those numbers are better than Montana's (although Joe had more wins and rings).

Regarding "track record in the postseason":1. IMO Montana's numbers in 23 games from 1981 to 1994 are more impressive than Warner's numbers in 13 games from 1999 to 2009.

2. Montana led his teams to 7 AFC/NFC championship games, compared to 3 for Warner.

3. Montana won 3 Super Bowl MVPs, compared to 1 for Warner.

As I said, IMO no one has matched Montana's postseason track record to date.

1. Except Brady will be 17-5 in 22 games vs. Montana's 16-7.

2. Except Brady led his teams to 6 AFC championship games

3. Except Brady will also have won 3 Super Bowl MVPs if he can win one this weekend

And he's done the above in 3 fewer seasons than Montana with a chance to add to it.

Sorry, but I disagree that no one has matched Montana in the post-season. Brady has certainly matched him if he were to win it this weekend and actually surpassed in certain areas. And yes, I know his actual QB #'s are lower than Montana in the post-season, but Montana's are lower than Warner's, so.......

Sorry, disagree completely. 7 AFC/NFC championship games > 6 AFC championship games. No match there, regardless of this weekend's outcome. Brady can at best match Montana in Super Bowl wins and/or SBMVPs if he wins this weekend.The statistics currently favor Montana by a lot:

Brady: 472/752 (62.8%) for 5009 passing yards (6.66 ypa), 36 passing TDs, 19 Interceptions, 87.6 passer rating, 53/80/3 rushing

Montana: 460/734 (62.7%) for 5772 passing yards (7.86 ypa), 45 passing TDs, 21 interceptions, 95.6 passer rating, 63/314/2 rushing

It's not close. Brady has more combined passing and rushing attempts, yet Montana has roughly 1000 more total yards, 8 more total TDs, and a much better passer rating. And Montana achieved his numbers about 20 years earlier, which is even more impressive.

Already addressed Warner. It's not close between him and Montana in terms of "postseason track record", which is what I responded to originally on this tangent.

Seriously? 6 championship games vs. 7 championship games is "no match"? Really? I'd say when you factor in that Brady made it to 5 Super Bowls vs. 4 Super Bowls, I'd consider that stat a wash. 4-1 in the Super Bowl is > 4-0 in the Super Bowl. And that's not to mention that Brady has 3 more years to make 1 more championship game to match Montana.You ignore the fact that Brady has a higher winning % in the playoffs.

So, assuming he wins Super Bowl MVP (which is a big assumption, granted), he will have tied him in that, essentially tied him in Championship Games/Super Bowl appearances, and have a higher winning %.

I've already granted that Montana has better passing stats, but if that's what we're using to determine the best postseason QB, Warner wins that hands down regardless of records.

Even if you want to look at that compilation and say Montana is better, which I think there's an argument for, to say Brady "isn't close" is absurd.

I said three things:1. No one has matched Montana's postseason track record.

2. Warner's postseason track record isn't close to Montana's.

3. Brady's postseason numbers aren't close to Montana's.

You seem to be mixing those statements together. I haven't said Brady's overall postseason track record isn't close to Montana's. But he hasn't matched it.

Yes, the extra championship game means a lot when put into context. Montana did it with two franchises, Brady has not done it without Belichick. Edge Montana.

And I don't care about Brady having more years to do more. This entire tangent has been about the here and now. We can revisit in the future if Brady adds to his postseason track record. The Pats winning the Super Bowl and/or Brady winning SBMVP will certainly draw him closer.

....or Brady could suck in the SB like he did in the AFC Championship game

 

[AmosMoses]

I think Brady is way up there, if not the greatest ever. Def the greatest of this era (possibly be beaten out by Brees, but doubtful). But can anyone explain why Brady's passing numbers are so bad considering the era he plays in? It seems they should be much greater considering the amount of games and wins he has.

 

[David Yudkin]

I think Brady is way up there, if not the greatest ever. Def the greatest of this era (possibly be beaten out by Brees, but doubtful). But can anyone explain why Brady's passing numbers are so bad considering the era he plays in? It seems they should be much greater considering the amount of games and wins he has.

Passing numbers only started to ramp up and begin to go through the roof since 2004 and Brady missed an entire year in the middle of that. The Pats were not really pass happy like they are now in the first half of Brady's career. Much more balanced pre-Moss and Welker in terms of pass / run / defense.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Brady is already the greatest now.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Brady helps the Patriots. Peyton Manning IS the Colts.

This is exactly why Brady >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peyton Manning. He is not selfish.

 

[southeastjerome]

A lot depends on how he plays. If the Pats win and he plays like he did against the Ravens or like he did in playoff wins against SD in the 2006 or 2007 seasons, then no. If he comes out and makes the big throws and leads them to victory, then quite possibly.

 

[Tanner9919]

He isnt even the best qb in the nfl right now, let alone best ever. If Manning has beaten him twice in the Big Gsme shouldnt that make Manning>>>Brady??? Not really.but it shows that Tommy isnt great afterall..whod they beat.??? Opponents winning record 115-141 this season....Pats beat nobody teams...and BB is a punk for dodging post game interviews on NBC../coward sore loser...

 

[AmosMoses]

I can't believe I bought into the myth of Tom Brady. This was bull####. No one even remotely close to the GOAT plays like a ###### in the Super Bowl like Brady did tonight!!!

 

[BigSteelThrill]

No.No.No.

People are fighting to be #2 on the list, no more.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Winning a superbowl wouldn't make him better. If he's better, he will be more likely to win the superbowl. But observing a superbowl win or loss would give us a better idea of how good he was.

Agreed. The Patriots had plenty of chances to win this game. Brady has now won 3 SBs and lost 2. He will go down as one of the greats but with 2 losses, he would never go down as the better clutch performer over Joe Montana. These last two SBs for Brady were great games but he lost two close games.

 

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

Tom Brady

2001:Superbowl MVP (troy brown sets franchise record with 101 receptions)

2002: led NFL in TD passes (two receivers with more than 3 td receptions are fauria with 7 and patten with 5)

2003: Superbowl MVP (leading receiver is Branch with 803 yards)

2004: Superbowl champ (Deion Branch sets receptions record as Superbowl MVP)

2005: extends playoff record to 10-0, throws for 4120 yards and 28 TDs with no receiver getting 1000 yards or more than 5tds.

2006: afc championship game (leading receiver is reche caldwell with 760 yards)

2007: league mvp, 18-0, superbowl, all time greatest offense, sets td record with 50 tds and only 8 ints (leading receiver randy moss)

2008: misses season, pats lose 5 more games, cassel throws for 1300 fewer yards, and miss playoffs for first time since 2002)

2009: returns to playoffs, throws for 900 more yards than cassel. (Leading receiver is wes welker)

2010: league mvp in first fully healthy season post injury, 36 tds/4 ints and sets interception record (leading receiver wes welker)

2011: returns to superbowl (outcome tbd), breaks marinos yardage record, helps rob gronkowski set all time te records for yards and tds.

Greatest of all time.

It's really hard to ignore the statistics when you are trying to determine the best QB of all time.Brady's resume speaks for itself. Randy Moss comes out of the gutter in Oakland to catch 23 TDs in his first season with Brady. The most in Randy Moss's illustrious career. Why? because Brady is such an average QB?

Brady throws for an NFL record 50 touchdowns in a season. Did Belichek throw those passes?

Brady breaks Marino's passing yards record but it's hardly noticed as Brees gets all the accolades because he hits the mark first. Cudoes to Brees for this.

Brady throws an unbelievable 4 INT's in a 16 game season. Because he is erratic under pressure?

And the list goes on and on and on.......

Oh, and how could I forget: He was won 3 superbowl titles. But that's just a minor point.

Yes, it's a team game, Bill Belichek is a coaching genius, NE's defences have historically been stellar, but Brady still has to deliver the football in the clutch in the playoffs, and he has. Brady has the same thing that Montana had: poise

Brady was clutch with the tuck ruleBrady was clutch scoring no offensive TDs against Steelers next week in AFC championship before getting hurt

Brady was clutch when John kasy kicked the ball out of bounds, leading to a short FG drive to win the Sb against the Panthers

Brady was clutch when he threw what should have been game eneding INT against Chargers 2006, only to have DB fumble back to Pats

Brady was clutch following week when pats blew lead against Colts and he threw a INT on the Pats final drive

Brady was clutch when he threw 3 Ints against a hobbled Chargers teamin AFC championship

Brady was clutch when his record setting offense only scores 14 pts in SB against Giants

Brady was cluth in playoff loss to Ravens throwing mult Ints

Brady was clutch in playoff loss to Jets when he was ducking from ghost dlineman

Brady was clutch in win over ravens last week when Lee Evans and Cundif screwed up

Brady was clutch when mat Cassel takes over team and wins 11 games

He is a good QB, but very fortunate and overrated

Update: Mr. Overrated was clutch in SB 46, with intentional grounding safety, horrible INT, and just not getting it done

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Montana never lost a Superbowl.

Neither did Jim Plunkett.Is that the deciding factor for GOAT?

When you go to four of them, yes.Oh, and Montana was never an accomplice to a spygate.

What if Brady were to win yet another? Is 4-0 > 5-1?

maybe you should let Brady win this one first. but if you want to crown him, then crown him

3n2.Elway is 2n3 and I think he's better than Brady

 

[David Yudkin]

Update: Mr. Overrated was clutch in SB 46, with intentional grounding safety, horrible INT, and just not getting it done

I am not one of the ones suggesting Brady is the GOAT . . . but Brady was potentially two NYG circus catches away from being 5-0 in the SBs.

 

[Modog814]

Update: Mr. Overrated was clutch in SB 46, with intentional grounding safety, horrible INT, and just not getting it done

I am not one of the ones suggesting Brady is the GOAT . . . but Brady was potentially two NYG circus catches away from being 5-0 in the SBs.

He's also potentially 3 Adam Vinatieri kicks away from being 0-5 in superbowls. Come on David, you're better than to play that card...

 

[dutch]

Update: Mr. Overrated was clutch in SB 46, with intentional grounding safety, horrible INT, and just not getting it done

I am not one of the ones suggesting Brady is the GOAT . . . but Brady was potentially two NYG circus catches away from being 5-0 in the SBs.

Manningham made great play thta professional recievers practice hard at all the time in order to be ready for just such a chance. And Manning laid the perfect ball on that throw as well. Tyree's was a miracle of miracles.Lee Evans Not holding onto a routine catch was also a miracle for the Pats.The tuck rule was divine inervention at its best.Anymore hypos we want to deal with?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Update: Mr. Overrated was clutch in SB 46, with intentional grounding safety, horrible INT, and just not getting it done

I am not one of the ones suggesting Brady is the GOAT . . . but Brady was potentially two NYG circus catches away from being 5-0 in the SBs.

He is also a Tuck Rule, a John Kasay kickoff out of bounds and McNabb being too tired away from being 0-5.

 

[Tanner9919]

Quite a few consider Montana the GOAT mostly due to his postseason performances. Here's a few comparisons of overall and postseason #'s:

Joe Montana:

--13 seasons as starter (15 total)

--117-47 as a starter (71%)

--3 All-Pros, 8 Pro Bowls

--12th in career passing yards (40,551)

--9th in career passer rating (92.3)

--8th in career game winning drives (33)

--23 playoff games with 16 wins and 7 losses (.696 winning % and 2nd most playoff wins of all time)

--4 Super Bowl wins (tied for most by any QB)

Tom Brady

--10 seasons as starter (12 total)

--124-35 as a starter (78% -- highest winning % of all time)

--2 All-Pros, 7 Pro Bowls

--14th in career passing yards (39,979)

--4th in career passer rating (96.4)

--6th in career game winning drives (34)

--22 playoff games with 17 wins and 5 losses (.772 winning % and most playoff wins of all time)

--4 Super Bowl wins (tied for most by any QB)

Other notes:

--Brady never won a Super Bowl with a WR the caliber of Jerry Rice

--He will have won it this year with a historically bad defense

--2nd highest single season passing yards (5235 yards)

--Most TDs thrown in a single season (50)

--He's not done yet as he's still only 34

So.....is he?

ETA--If you vote no, then go ahead and list who your #1 QB is and why you think so.

4-0 in SB's trumps 3-2..now that Tommy has lost twice, he is slightly below Elway..I'd take Elway over Tommy any day of the week.

I think Tommy is even below Aikman, who is right there with him, 3 SB wins, at least 1 SB MVP..

in 16 postseason games, Aikman was 11-5, completed 63.7% of his passes, for 3849 yards, 23-17 TD/int, 88.3 rating,7.67 yp/a..

while Tommy's numbers are:

22 post season games, 16-6 ( counting last night's loss)

in 21 postseason games (not counting last night's game because I don't have these particular stats) 62.8 comp %, 26-19 td/int, 87.6 rating, 6.66 yp/a...

Aikman >> Brady..

and Aikman started from scratch, with a lousy team .he didn't win a game as starting QB, whereas Tommy was given a very good team once Bledsoe got hurt. doubtful Tommy would have become anything special if he had to work from scratch like Aikman did, he would not have lasted long with Aikman's line..Aikman took a beating those first years..

Aikman won the most games in a decade in NFL history till Peyton and Tommy beat that.Aikman still ranks 3rd in that category. this, after losing 11 games his first season as a starter.

Aikman wasn't handed a ferrari like Brady was, he was given a Ford Pinto and had to run for his life..

 

[David Yudkin]

Update: Mr. Overrated was clutch in SB 46, with intentional grounding safety, horrible INT, and just not getting it done

I am not one of the ones suggesting Brady is the GOAT . . . but Brady was potentially two NYG circus catches away from being 5-0 in the SBs.

He is also a Tuck Rule, a John Kasay kickoff out of bounds and McNabb being too tired away from being 0-5.

That's kind of the nature of the beast. Players often get flamed for things that have nothing to do with them. Games can swing either way on big plays. Adam V misses his clutch kicks and Brady could be a modern day Fran Tarkenton. Welker holds onto that third down pass late in the game last night and we very likely would be talking about how great Brady was yesterday.After all these years, I amd surprised (although certianly not shocked) that people still think football is a one man game (the QB) as if no one else on the roster impacted the outcome of each game.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Update: Mr. Overrated was clutch in SB 46, with intentional grounding safety, horrible INT, and just not getting it done

I am not one of the ones suggesting Brady is the GOAT . . . but Brady was potentially two NYG circus catches away from being 5-0 in the SBs.

He is also a Tuck Rule, a John Kasay kickoff out of bounds and McNabb being too tired away from being 0-5.

That's kind of the nature of the beast. Players often get flamed for things that have nothing to do with them. Games can swing either way on big plays. Adam V misses his clutch kicks and Brady could be a modern day Fran Tarkenton. Welker holds onto that third down pass late in the game last night and we very likely would be talking about how great Brady was yesterday.After all these years, I amd surprised (although certianly not shocked) that people still think football is a one man game (the QB) as if no one else on the roster impacted the outcome of each game.

I think most of us know that already, which is the point. But wins and losses aside, when you look at the play and individual numbers of Brady and Montana in championship games and Super Bowls, it is simply no comparison; Montana wins hands down. And I suspect Brady will still make another Super Bowl or two.

 

[Workhorse]

Quite a few consider Montana the GOAT mostly due to his postseason performances. Here's a few comparisons of overall and postseason #'s:

Joe Montana:

--13 seasons as starter (15 total)

--117-47 as a starter (71%)

--3 All-Pros, 8 Pro Bowls

--12th in career passing yards (40,551)

--9th in career passer rating (92.3)

--8th in career game winning drives (33)

--23 playoff games with 16 wins and 7 losses (.696 winning % and 2nd most playoff wins of all time)

--4 Super Bowl wins (tied for most by any QB)

Tom Brady

--10 seasons as starter (12 total)

--124-35 as a starter (78% -- highest winning % of all time)

--2 All-Pros, 7 Pro Bowls

--14th in career passing yards (39,979)

--4th in career passer rating (96.4)

--6th in career game winning drives (34)

--22 playoff games with 17 wins and 5 losses (.772 winning % and most playoff wins of all time)

--4 Super Bowl wins (tied for most by any QB)

Other notes:

--Brady never won a Super Bowl with a WR the caliber of Jerry Rice

--He will have won it this year with a historically bad defense

--2nd highest single season passing yards (5235 yards)

--Most TDs thrown in a single season (50)

--He's not done yet as he's still only 34

So.....is he?

ETA--If you vote no, then go ahead and list who your #1 QB is and why you think so.

4-0 in SB's trumps 3-2..now that Tommy has lost twice, he is slightly below Elway..I'd take Elway over Tommy any day of the week.

I think Tommy is even below Aikman, who is right there with him, 3 SB wins, at least 1 SB MVP..

in 16 postseason games, Aikman was 11-5, completed 63.7% of his passes, for 3849 yards, 23-17 TD/int, 88.3 rating,7.67 yp/a..

while Tommy's numbers are:

22 post season games, 16-6 ( counting last night's loss)

in 21 postseason games (not counting last night's game because I don't have these particular stats) 62.8 comp %, 26-19 td/int, 87.6 rating, 6.66 yp/a...

Aikman >> Brady..

and Aikman started from scratch, with a lousy team .he didn't win a game as starting QB, whereas Tommy was given a very good team once Bledsoe got hurt. doubtful Tommy would have become anything special if he had to work from scratch like Aikman did, he would not have lasted long with Aikman's line..Aikman took a beating those first years..

Aikman won the most games in a decade in NFL history till Peyton and Tommy beat that.Aikman still ranks 3rd in that category. this, after losing 11 games his first season as a starter.

Aikman wasn't handed a ferrari like Brady was, he was given a Ford Pinto and had to run for his life..

This post might drain the Shark Pool. Good lord.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Quite a few consider Montana the GOAT mostly due to his postseason performances. Here's a few comparisons of overall and postseason #'s:

Joe Montana:

--13 seasons as starter (15 total)

--117-47 as a starter (71%)

--3 All-Pros, 8 Pro Bowls

--12th in career passing yards (40,551)

--9th in career passer rating (92.3)

--8th in career game winning drives (33)

--23 playoff games with 16 wins and 7 losses (.696 winning % and 2nd most playoff wins of all time)

--4 Super Bowl wins (tied for most by any QB)

Tom Brady

--10 seasons as starter (12 total)

--124-35 as a starter (78% -- highest winning % of all time)

--2 All-Pros, 7 Pro Bowls

--14th in career passing yards (39,979)

--4th in career passer rating (96.4)

--6th in career game winning drives (34)

--22 playoff games with 17 wins and 5 losses (.772 winning % and most playoff wins of all time)

--4 Super Bowl wins (tied for most by any QB)

Other notes:

--Brady never won a Super Bowl with a WR the caliber of Jerry Rice

--He will have won it this year with a historically bad defense

--2nd highest single season passing yards (5235 yards)

--Most TDs thrown in a single season (50)

--He's not done yet as he's still only 34

So.....is he?

ETA--If you vote no, then go ahead and list who your #1 QB is and why you think so.

4-0 in SB's trumps 3-2..now that Tommy has lost twice, he is slightly below Elway..I'd take Elway over Tommy any day of the week.

I think Tommy is even below Aikman, who is right there with him, 3 SB wins, at least 1 SB MVP..

in 16 postseason games, Aikman was 11-5, completed 63.7% of his passes, for 3849 yards, 23-17 TD/int, 88.3 rating,7.67 yp/a..

while Tommy's numbers are:

22 post season games, 16-6 ( counting last night's loss)

in 21 postseason games (not counting last night's game because I don't have these particular stats) 62.8 comp %, 26-19 td/int, 87.6 rating, 6.66 yp/a...

Aikman >> Brady..

and Aikman started from scratch, with a lousy team .he didn't win a game as starting QB, whereas Tommy was given a very good team once Bledsoe got hurt. doubtful Tommy would have become anything special if he had to work from scratch like Aikman did, he would not have lasted long with Aikman's line..Aikman took a beating those first years..

Aikman won the most games in a decade in NFL history till Peyton and Tommy beat that.Aikman still ranks 3rd in that category. this, after losing 11 games his first season as a starter.

Aikman wasn't handed a ferrari like Brady was, he was given a Ford Pinto and had to run for his life..

This post might drain the Shark Pool. Good lord.

He's been pissing that post in nearly every thread in the SP since last night. Surprised the mods haven't banned him yet, but best to just ignore him in the meantime.

 

[David Yudkin]

Update: Mr. Overrated was clutch in SB 46, with intentional grounding safety, horrible INT, and just not getting it done

I am not one of the ones suggesting Brady is the GOAT . . . but Brady was potentially two NYG circus catches away from being 5-0 in the SBs.

He is also a Tuck Rule, a John Kasay kickoff out of bounds and McNabb being too tired away from being 0-5.

That's kind of the nature of the beast. Players often get flamed for things that have nothing to do with them. Games can swing either way on big plays. Adam V misses his clutch kicks and Brady could be a modern day Fran Tarkenton. Welker holds onto that third down pass late in the game last night and we very likely would be talking about how great Brady was yesterday.After all these years, I amd surprised (although certianly not shocked) that people still think football is a one man game (the QB) as if no one else on the roster impacted the outcome of each game.

I think most of us know that already, which is the point. But wins and losses aside, when you look at the play and individual numbers of Brady and Montana in championship games and Super Bowls, it is simply no comparison; Montana wins hands down. And I suspect Brady will still make another Super Bowl or two.

I would argue that if Brady were to somehow keep playing and go 4-3 in Super Bowls that would be a better achievement than going 4-0 in Super Bowls. You still have to be better than 15 other teams to get into the SB and win it. As others have said, every time Montana did not ever reach the Super Bowl, that season should go down as a much greater net loss than making the SB and then losing.That being said, I agree that Montana was a far superior postseason QB than Brady has been based on their individual performances.

 

[David Yudkin]

Aikman wasn't handed a ferrari like Brady was, he was given a Ford Pinto and had to run for his life..

I chuckled at this part. Who exactly did Brady have to work with offensively pre-2007 that came close to be considered a Ferrari?

 

[GregR]

Aikman wasn't handed a ferrari like Brady was, he was given a Ford Pinto and had to run for his life..

I chuckled at this part. Who exactly did Brady have to work with offensively pre-2007 that came close to be considered a Ferrari?

He's referring to Joe Andruzzi, who just like Ferrari has an Italian sounding name.