Which QB is (was) the most clutch? (1 Viewer)

[Captain Spaulding]

I would have thrown Steve McNair as an "honorable mention" to the clutch QB's....oh' then there was the game last weekend though. That hurt!

 

[Liquid Tension]

Montana and it's not even close.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Better to judge him now than to wait until he plays past his prime. Five years ago Favre would have been in this debate, but so many people jumped off his bandwagon, he doesn't get a mention.

maybe... maybe not.half the fans forget that Montana finished with KC too... and did so somewhat unspectacularly.

and I don't think anyone's jumping off Favre's bandwagon. It's just a case of another guy getting over-exposed by the media and fans tiring of it. It will get worse too if/when the Favre retirement nonesense starts again.

But that's all peripheral really. Favre goes down as one of the all-time greats. Give it time for the All-Favre, All-The-Time media nonsense to slow down and then there will be more objectivity in ranking his greatness.

Honestly the Montana comeback with the Chiefs (I guess it was the playoffs) was the moment I truly anointed him "the one." My personal take is that the discussion just on QB's doesn't do justice to the importance of the team. Elway won SB's when he had the #1 running back. Aikman won with 9 pro bowlers on offense and a great defense, Bradshaw was just along for the ride on an amazing team and on and on...When Montana went to the Chiefs he showed he would have been excellent anywhere there was at least a decent team around him.

 

[Jous]

If you would tell me that I could have any QB ever, for one game, I'd take Joe Montana... but Brady would be strongly considered along with Johnny Unitas. Elway would be my choice only after those 3.

But if Brady wins the Super Bowl this year, he'll still have another good 5 more years to win his 5th one, which would almost unanimously make him everyone's choice for most clutch (and best) QB ever.

 

[MarshallRob]

Of the choices offered I think you have to go with Montana. He played about as great as a QB can play in Super Bowls XIX and XXIV and he's also got the legendary last-minute comeback drives in Super Bowl XXIII and the 1981 NFC Championship game. As previously noted his postseason QB rating is higher than his already excellent regular season rating. Montana did have a few postseason stinkers, notably the 1987 divisional playoff loss to the Vikings, a huge upset. But playoff perfection has eluded everyone once Brady put up that bad game against Denver last year. If Troy Brown doesn't force that fumble last week, might not we all be debating the topic of whether or not Brady has lost his playoff mojo? If Brady does wind up doing great things the next two games, the clutch debate between he and Montana will get even more interesting. I don't see how Elway is even in this discussion. He lost three Super Bowls and his first two were winnable games that he has to take some blame for losing. Denver blew a number of scoring chances in the first half of Super Bowl XXI, including a first-and-goal at the one that resulted in no points. Plus Elway got sacked twice costing his team a safety and the momentum when they had the lead. Super Bowl XXII was even worse. Denver led 10-0 with two good chances to add to their lead. They had two consecutive drives with good field position in the first and second quarter but they ended up punting on both drives before Washington blew the game open in the 2d quarter. Maybe the Skins would have come back no matter what but no team has ever come back from a 17-point deficit.

QB's not listed as choices:

1) Bart Starr. The highest postseason QB rating of all time. 9-1 record. 3 postseason interceptions. 2 Super Bowl MVP awards. 5 championships. In some of the most difficult conditions in NFL history he led his team to the winning drive in the 1967 NFL title game ("The Ice Bowl"). His team beat their biggest rivals, Unitas' Colts, 10 of 15 times and won 5 critical games in a row in 1965-1966 when they were the two best teams in the league. If the number of rings a QB has is the most important statistic, doesn't Starr have to be in the discussion?

2) Bret Favre. The Packers were huge favorites Super Bowl XXXII. Favre turned it over twice, didn't play that great, and had the ball in his hands with 1:45 left and a chance to win the game. He didn't get it done. Late in the 4th quarter of the 1995 NFC Championship Game, Favre had the ball in Dallas territory trailing 31-27. Favre threw a horrible pick to Larry Brown that set up the clinching Dallas TD. Favre's one of the greatest QB's of all time but how can he be considered the "most clutch" QB ever without pulling out at least one of those games?

3) Johnny Unitas. Awesome in the 1958 and 1959 title games. But, he was horrible in the 1964 title game, he lost all four regular season games to the team he had to beat in 1965-1966, the Packers, and his team got crushed by the Rams in the must-win last game of the 1967 regular season, costing the Colts a playoff berth and an undefeated season. The Colts had the best record in the NFL from 1964-1967 but didn't win a single title. Not so clutch. He was ok in relief in Super Bowl III. He played badly in limited play in Super Bowl V but his team won anyway.

 

[CalBear]

This stretch of Montana's career (the 1988 and 1989 Super Bowl runs) has to rate as the best post-season run ever by a QB:

1988 min W,34-9 | 16 27 178 3 1 | 3 18 0 1988 chi W,28-3 | 17 27 288 3 0 | 3 12 0 1988 cin W,20-16 | 23 36 357 2 0 | 5 9 0 1989 min W,41-13 | 17 24 241 4 0 | 2 0 0 1989 ram W,30-3 | 26 30 262 2 0 | 1 4 0 1989 den W,55-10 | 22 29 297 5 0 | 2 15 0121/173 (70%), 270 yards per game, 19 TD, 1 INT. QB rating 133.66, including two Super Bowl wins.John Elway in that 1989 game? 10/26 for 106 yards, 0 TD 2 INT. Rating 26.25.

 

[Bossman]

I'm a die-hard Patriots fan but I still have to go with Montana. Maybe my memory of him is distorted because it was some time ago...but I rember him playing against the best defenses in the playoffs and at the end of the game shreding them without breaking a sweat.

Before Elway won his SB's I always rememberd him losing in a lot of big games.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

I would pick Montana now slightly over Brady. Montana was unbelievable in Superbowls and gets the nod. However, he had a horrid stretch in 85-87 where the 49ers did not win a playoff game despite going 13-2 in 1987. Montana threw no TD's got picked 4 times and had some fumbles.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I'd have to say Brady edges out Montana. What's about to come is going to sound weird, but hear me out...

Montana's 49ers teams should have won 6 titles (and possibly a 7th if they weren't jobbed by the refs in the NFCCG vs. Washington). Those '80s 49ers were that good. They should have won in 1987 & 1990, but Montana played like poop in the 1987 playoff loss to the Vikings and was ineffective before getting injured in the 1990 NFCCG. When his teams weren't title-contender caliber, the 49ers bowed out meekly (1985, 1986) in the first round with Montana playing stinkers of games in those losses. Doesn't make Montana a bum by any stretch because four SB titles is still damn impressive, but look at it this way...the 49ers four titles are like the Bulls winning only 4 instead of 6 titles in the 1990s - an underachievement of sorts.

In contrast, the Pats had no business winning SB36. They were 4 plays from being 10-6 in 2003, but Brady played huge in those near-losses and saved HFA which carried them to a SB38 title. In 2004 the team was clearly championship-material, but still had to go into 15-1 Pittsburgh where Brady played lights-out *with the flu* (there's his 'The Catch' game) and then he picked apart a blitz-happy Eagles team that had 3 Pro Bowlers in the secondary backing those blitzes up. Brady's road to his titles has been more impressive and this is why I'm giving him the nod. If the Pats win SB41 in three weeks, he'll start to distance himself from the field.

Joes 4 has to edge Bradys 3.Until theyre on the same level with rings, how can you give the nod to Brady.

I read your post and I hear your argument, but it seems like youre banking on Brady winning it all this year. That ship has still to set sail, and how clutch would Brady be if he loses this weekend. I would wait it out a few weeks to say what youre saying. And I appreciate the fact that you are not just basing this opinion on nothing, you have showed a substaintial amount of data to develop your well thought out but poorly advised argument. Career wise, you have to give it to Joe as of now, nothing you can say will take away the fact he has won more Superbowls, and what is more clutch than being the QB for a 4 SB winning team (just ask terry bradshaw).

Which is more impressive: Winning 4 rings when you should have won 6 or winning 3 rings when you should have won 1 (I'll concede 2 if the Pats 2003 season is considered like the 49ers 1988 season - those Pats were real close to 10-6)? If the Pats win in 3 weeks, that will be 4 rings when they really should have won 1 (or 2). And Brady still has plenty of years ahead of him and expecting him to nosedive is nuts when you look at him play. For God's sake, they might win their 4th ring with Jabar Gaffney and Reche Caldwell as their top 2 WRs! Brady continues to get more out of less.

Id take the more rings. Putting Shoulda woulda coulda aside....take whats real. Stats are stats, and theres no denying Brady will continue to play. But how many superbowls did Montana win in the 1990s? I think its reasonable to say 2000's are Brady's as the 1980's we're Montana's. And Montana won 4. Ill stick to my guns and say 4 of 6 beats 3 of 5, which is to say Brady doesn't win this year. If Brady does win the SB this year, Ill certainly change my opinion with that achievement and admit my faults. Until then, Joe is the better QB to have. Better Defense or not. Hell, the best defense is a great offense, no?

You'd take "more rings" because you're misunderstanding the question imo. You're confusing "better" with "more clutch."The better QB will usually win more rings. The more clutch QB will win more rings than his talent level dictates that he should.

 

[Saints-Man]

Until the Patriots fall apart as a dynasty, there is no tarnish on his luster. He doesn't play with the offensive talent Montana enjoyed, and Elways' highest level of success came at the end of his career when he was no longer the focal point of his offense. Don't get me wrong, Montana and Elway were both great players, and both have amazing drives they will always be remembered for, but if Brady keeps doing what he's doing, I don't know how you put anyone in front of him, especially if the Pats get another trophy this year.

I agree with this. Montana won 4 SBs, 2 blowouts and 2 close games. In one of those close games, he had Jerry Rice in his prime, John Taylor, TE Brent Jones & Wesley Walls. A Great receiving core. For me, it is b/w Montana & Brady, and as of right now I would give the ever slightest edge to Brady.

 

[LAUNCH]

i think ppl are giving brady too much clutch credit ... he has played very well in the playoffs, but that WHOLE TEAM is clutch ... belicheck ... vinateriaiaea ... troy brown ... the defense making big stops

49ers weren't exactly deprived of talent either. Rice, Taylor, Rathman, Craig, and B. Jones would all be starters on the Patriots. I think if you flipped teams with Montana and Brady it would be a bigger chore for Montana as a Patriot to duplicate what Tom has done.LAUNCH

 

[CalBear]

i think ppl are giving brady too much clutch credit ... he has played very well in the playoffs, but that WHOLE TEAM is clutch ... belicheck ... vinateriaiaea ... troy brown ... the defense making big stops

49ers weren't exactly deprived of talent either. Rice, Taylor, Rathman, Craig, and B. Jones would all be starters on the Patriots.

Montana had none of those players the first time he won a Super Bowl, and had only Craig in a part-time role the second time. (Wendell Tyler was the starting RB).

 

[Ghost Rider]

Hell, if Terrell Davis never existed we'd be grouping Elway with Manning and Marino instead of this group.

Sure, but we can also say that if Adam Vinatieri never existed, we would be grouping Brady in with those guys, too.

 

[bro1ncos]

As a die hard Elway fan, this is hard for me to say, but Montana was the definition of "clutch". Never threw a Super Bowl INT, led some amazing drives in the playoffs and Super Bowl.

Brady, IMO, still hasn't had that defining drive for a TD to win a huge game. A lot of his "clutch" drives have resulted in FG's.

Elway had numerous drives in playoffs and a winning drive for a TD in Super Bowl XXXII that proves his ability.

So for me of the 3 listed I go: Montana, Elway, Brady.

 

[MarshallRob]

Well, after tonight's game I don't see how you can put Brady ahead of Montana. Brady played well overall but his last-minute pick with the game on the line, coming a year after his poor performance against the Broncos, has to take a little shine off his clutch reputation.

 

[PMENFAN]

I'd have to say Brady edges out Montana. What's about to come is going to sound weird, but hear me out...Montana's 49ers teams should have won 6 titles (and possibly a 7th if they weren't jobbed by the refs in the NFCCG vs. Washington). Those '80s 49ers were that good. They should have won in 1987 & 1990, but Montana played like poop in the 1987 playoff loss to the Vikings and was ineffective before getting injured in the 1990 NFCCG. When his teams weren't title-contender caliber, the 49ers bowed out meekly (1985, 1986) in the first round with Montana playing stinkers of games in those losses. Doesn't make Montana a bum by any stretch because four SB titles is still damn impressive, but look at it this way...the 49ers four titles are like the Bulls winning only 4 instead of 6 titles in the 1990s - an underachievement of sorts.In contrast, the Pats had no business winning SB36. They were 4 plays from being 10-6 in 2003, but Brady played huge in those near-losses and saved HFA which carried them to a SB38 title. In 2004 the team was clearly championship-material, but still had to go into 15-1 Pittsburgh where Brady played lights-out *with the flu* (there's his 'The Catch' game) and then he picked apart a blitz-happy Eagles team that had 3 Pro Bowlers in the secondary backing those blitzes up. Brady's road to his titles has been more impressive and this is why I'm giving him the nod. If the Pats win SB41 in three weeks, he'll start to distance himself from the field.

Joes 4 has to edge Bradys 3.Until theyre on the same level with rings, how can you give the nod to Brady.I read your post and I hear your argument, but it seems like youre banking on Brady winning it all this year. That ship has still to set sail, and how clutch would Brady be if he loses this weekend. I would wait it out a few weeks to say what youre saying. And I appreciate the fact that you are not just basing this opinion on nothing, you have showed a substaintial amount of data to develop your well thought out but poorly advised argument. Career wise, you have to give it to Joe as of now, nothing you can say will take away the fact he has won more Superbowls, and what is more clutch than being the QB for a 4 SB winning team (just ask terry bradshaw).

#1 Brady's still playing. #2 They played in vastly different eras. Joe was great. But, Joe also played in an era where there were only 4-5 teams a year that were a threat to beat you and even less that were a threat to win the title. Hence, we had the blowout years of the superbowls. As was pointed out above. Neither has always played great. I say Brady, even with todays game ending pick. He continually was making plays at the end. Caldwell had a couple of drops, and the too many men penalty was costly. But, those things happen, and you have to overcome them. I give Brady props for doing it with the talent level, and rotating door of talent that he's done it with. Montana had Jerry Rice for many years. Clark, Taylor, the most innovative offense of the time, adn many other factors in his favor that Brady doesn't have.

 

[CalBear]

I say Brady, even with todays game ending pick. He continually was making plays at the end. Caldwell had a couple of drops, and the too many men penalty was costly. But, those things happen, and you have to overcome them. I give Brady props for doing it with the talent level, and rotating door of talent that he's done it with. Montana had Jerry Rice for many years. Clark, Taylor, the most innovative offense of the time

Montana won two Super Bowls before Jerry Rice and Taylor arrived. Dwight Clark had one 1000-yard season in his entire career. Freddie Solomon had none. Leading rusher for the Niners in 1981? Ricky Patton, 152 carries for 543 yards. 1984? Wendell Tyler (Rams retread).

 

[17seconds]

Without a Dan Marino option this poll is bogus.

So is not reading the FIRST POST in the thread....

You've learned what I learned long ago.It is impossible to make a poll here to compare things. People can't grasp the concept and always bring in their own choices.

 

[Lateral]

I give up...

Maybe you should be more specific in your thread titles. If you ask "Who is the most clutch?" or "Who is the best?", then offer only three choices, it's human nature for people to give different opinions.People remember the Superbowls, so it's always going to be Montana or Brady. But Denver's shortcomings under Dan Reeves shouldn't detract from Elway's amazing feats. He willed those Broncos to victory more times than I care to remember, especially back in the eighties.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

I would have thrown Steve McNair as "honorable mention" to the clutch QB's....oh' then there was the game last weekend though. That hurt!

And now Brady drops several notches in the "clutch" QB poll with late game picks in back to back playoff games when the game was on the line. Lucky for 2nd chance against San Diego and Indy nailed the coffin. Joe Montana is back at #1 easily.Again, clutch to me means some who shines under pressure situations...critical 3rd and long completions, late game winning drives etc. Not necessarily great all the time but great when required for victory. Thats clutch.

 

[Iron Mike Tomczak]

I'd have to say Brady edges out Montana. What's about to come is going to sound weird, but hear me out...Montana's 49ers teams should have won 6 titles (and possibly a 7th if they weren't jobbed by the refs in the NFCCG vs. Washington). Those '80s 49ers were that good. They should have won in 1987 & 1990, but Montana played like poop in the 1987 playoff loss to the Vikings and was ineffective before getting injured in the 1990 NFCCG. When his teams weren't title-contender caliber, the 49ers bowed out meekly (1985, 1986) in the first round with Montana playing stinkers of games in those losses. Doesn't make Montana a bum by any stretch because four SB titles is still damn impressive, but look at it this way...the 49ers four titles are like the Bulls winning only 4 instead of 6 titles in the 1990s - an underachievement of sorts.In contrast, the Pats had no business winning SB36. They were 4 plays from being 10-6 in 2003, but Brady played huge in those near-losses and saved HFA which carried them to a SB38 title. In 2004 the team was clearly championship-material, but still had to go into 15-1 Pittsburgh where Brady played lights-out *with the flu* (there's his 'The Catch' game) and then he picked apart a blitz-happy Eagles team that had 3 Pro Bowlers in the secondary backing those blitzes up. Brady's road to his titles has been more impressive and this is why I'm giving him the nod. If the Pats win SB41 in three weeks, he'll start to distance himself from the field.

Joes 4 has to edge Bradys 3.Until theyre on the same level with rings, how can you give the nod to Brady.I read your post and I hear your argument, but it seems like youre banking on Brady winning it all this year. That ship has still to set sail, and how clutch would Brady be if he loses this weekend. I would wait it out a few weeks to say what youre saying. And I appreciate the fact that you are not just basing this opinion on nothing, you have showed a substaintial amount of data to develop your well thought out but poorly advised argument. Career wise, you have to give it to Joe as of now, nothing you can say will take away the fact he has won more Superbowls, and what is more clutch than being the QB for a 4 SB winning team (just ask terry bradshaw).

#1 Brady's still playing. #2 They played in vastly different eras. Joe was great. But, Joe also played in an era where there were only 4-5 teams a year that were a threat to beat you and even less that were a threat to win the title. Hence, we had the blowout years of the superbowls. As was pointed out above. Neither has always played great. I say Brady, even with todays game ending pick. He continually was making plays at the end. Caldwell had a couple of drops, and the too many men penalty was costly. But, those things happen, and you have to overcome them. I give Brady props for doing it with the talent level, and rotating door of talent that he's done it with. Montana had Jerry Rice for many years. Clark, Taylor, the most innovative offense of the time, adn many other factors in his favor that Brady doesn't have.

Is he still playing? I think hes sitting on his couch right now watching American Idol, wishing he was in the spotlight as the NFLs pretty boy. Different eras, different Schmeras...theres not that many great teams now either *see the NFC* Brady also plays in the weakest division in the AFC, easy to win many games. He had his chance and blew it as I figured he would. Hes very good, but his window is closing. About personnel, the past 4 years Brady has had one of the best RBs in football in Corey Dillon. In 2006 he had the DIllon/Moroney two headed monster. He did somewhat lack a driving WR but they have many decent options. I agree he has no rice, but montana didnt have corey dillon and moroney. Agreed both QBs lost in the playoffs, but I believe Joe was more clutch and I dont think Brady will get a 4th ring.. I believe you underestimate the talent and consistancy to constantly win when everything is riding on it.

 

[My_Favorite_Team_is]

I'd have to say Brady edges out Montana. What's about to come is going to sound weird, but hear me out...

Montana's 49ers teams should have won 6 titles (and possibly a 7th if they weren't jobbed by the refs in the NFCCG vs. Washington). Those '80s 49ers were that good. They should have won in 1987 & 1990, but Montana played like poop in the 1987 playoff loss to the Vikings and was ineffective before getting injured in the 1990 NFCCG. When his teams weren't title-contender caliber, the 49ers bowed out meekly (1985, 1986) in the first round with Montana playing stinkers of games in those losses. Doesn't make Montana a bum by any stretch because four SB titles is still damn impressive, but look at it this way...the 49ers four titles are like the Bulls winning only 4 instead of 6 titles in the 1990s - an underachievement of sorts.

In contrast, the Pats had no business winning SB36. They were 4 plays from being 10-6 in 2003, but Brady played huge in those near-losses and saved HFA which carried them to a SB38 title. In 2004 the team was clearly championship-material, but still had to go into 15-1 Pittsburgh where Brady played lights-out *with the flu* (there's his 'The Catch' game) and then he picked apart a blitz-happy Eagles team that had 3 Pro Bowlers in the secondary backing those blitzes up. Brady's road to his titles has been more impressive and this is why I'm giving him the nod. If the Pats win SB41 in three weeks, he'll start to distance himself from the field.

Joes 4 has to edge Bradys 3.Until theyre on the same level with rings, how can you give the nod to Brady.

I read your post and I hear your argument, but it seems like youre banking on Brady winning it all this year. That ship has still to set sail, and how clutch would Brady be if he loses this weekend. I would wait it out a few weeks to say what youre saying. And I appreciate the fact that you are not just basing this opinion on nothing, you have showed a substaintial amount of data to develop your well thought out but poorly advised argument. Career wise, you have to give it to Joe as of now, nothing you can say will take away the fact he has won more Superbowls, and what is more clutch than being the QB for a 4 SB winning team (just ask terry bradshaw).

#1 Brady's still playing. #2 They played in vastly different eras. Joe was great. But, Joe also played in an era where there were only 4-5 teams a year that were a threat to beat you and even less that were a threat to win the title. Hence, we had the blowout years of the superbowls. As was pointed out above. Neither has always played great.

I say Brady, even with todays game ending pick. He continually was making plays at the end. Caldwell had a couple of drops, and the too many men penalty was costly. But, those things happen, and you have to overcome them. I give Brady props for doing it with the talent level, and rotating door of talent that he's done it with. Montana had Jerry Rice for many years. Clark, Taylor, the most innovative offense of the time, adn many other factors in his favor that Brady doesn't have.

Is he still playing? I think hes sitting on his couch right now watching American Idol, wishing he was in the spotlight as the NFLs pretty boy. Different eras, different Schmeras...theres not that many great teams now either *see the NFC* Brady also plays in the weakest division in the AFC, easy to win many games. He had his chance and blew it as I figured he would. Hes very good, but his window is closing. About personnel, the past 4 years Brady has had one of the best RBs in football in Corey Dillon. In 2006 he had the DIllon/Moroney two headed monster. He did somewhat lack a driving WR but they have many decent options. I agree he has no rice, but montana didnt have corey dillon and moroney. Agreed both QBs lost in the playoffs, but I believe Joe was more clutch and I dont think Brady will get a 4th ring.. I believe you underestimate the talent and consistancy to constantly win when everything is riding on it.

Uhhh...first bolded statement: AFC east: 35-29

AFC north: 31-31

AFC south: 34-30

AFC west: 34-30

NFC east: 32-32

NFC north: 30-34

NFC south: 29-35

NFC west: 29-35

Over the last five years:

AFC E 171-149

AFC N 160-159-1

AFC S 164-156

AFC W 171-149

NFC E 164-156

NFC N 144-176

NFC S 161-158-1

NFC W 144-176

2nd bolded statement: Roger Craig anyone???

I don't disagree with you that Joe Montana is more clutch and that Brady is NOT soley responsible for the rings but he does still have a chance to out ring Montana. I don't understand the judgement of Brady prematurely, it smells like hate to me.

 

[My_Favorite_Team_is]

I'd have to say Brady edges out Montana. What's about to come is going to sound weird, but hear me out...

Montana's 49ers teams should have won 6 titles (and possibly a 7th if they weren't jobbed by the refs in the NFCCG vs. Washington). Those '80s 49ers were that good. They should have won in 1987 & 1990, but Montana played like poop in the 1987 playoff loss to the Vikings and was ineffective before getting injured in the 1990 NFCCG. When his teams weren't title-contender caliber, the 49ers bowed out meekly (1985, 1986) in the first round with Montana playing stinkers of games in those losses. Doesn't make Montana a bum by any stretch because four SB titles is still damn impressive, but look at it this way...the 49ers four titles are like the Bulls winning only 4 instead of 6 titles in the 1990s - an underachievement of sorts.

In contrast, the Pats had no business winning SB36. They were 4 plays from being 10-6 in 2003, but Brady played huge in those near-losses and saved HFA which carried them to a SB38 title. In 2004 the team was clearly championship-material, but still had to go into 15-1 Pittsburgh where Brady played lights-out *with the flu* (there's his 'The Catch' game) and then he picked apart a blitz-happy Eagles team that had 3 Pro Bowlers in the secondary backing those blitzes up. Brady's road to his titles has been more impressive and this is why I'm giving him the nod. If the Pats win SB41 in three weeks, he'll start to distance himself from the field.

Joes 4 has to edge Bradys 3.Until theyre on the same level with rings, how can you give the nod to Brady.

I read your post and I hear your argument, but it seems like youre banking on Brady winning it all this year. That ship has still to set sail, and how clutch would Brady be if he loses this weekend. I would wait it out a few weeks to say what youre saying. And I appreciate the fact that you are not just basing this opinion on nothing, you have showed a substaintial amount of data to develop your well thought out but poorly advised argument. Career wise, you have to give it to Joe as of now, nothing you can say will take away the fact he has won more Superbowls, and what is more clutch than being the QB for a 4 SB winning team (just ask terry bradshaw).

#1 Brady's still playing. #2 They played in vastly different eras. Joe was great. But, Joe also played in an era where there were only 4-5 teams a year that were a threat to beat you and even less that were a threat to win the title. Hence, we had the blowout years of the superbowls. As was pointed out above. Neither has always played great.

I say Brady, even with todays game ending pick. He continually was making plays at the end. Caldwell had a couple of drops, and the too many men penalty was costly. But, those things happen, and you have to overcome them. I give Brady props for doing it with the talent level, and rotating door of talent that he's done it with. Montana had Jerry Rice for many years. Clark, Taylor, the most innovative offense of the time, adn many other factors in his favor that Brady doesn't have.

Is he still playing? I think hes sitting on his couch right now watching American Idol, wishing he was in the spotlight as the NFLs pretty boy. Different eras, different Schmeras...theres not that many great teams now either *see the NFC* Brady also plays in the weakest division in the AFC, easy to win many games. He had his chance and blew it as I figured he would. Hes very good, but his window is closing. About personnel, the past 4 years Brady has had one of the best RBs in football in Corey Dillon. In 2006 he had the DIllon/Moroney two headed monster. He did somewhat lack a driving WR but they have many decent options. I agree he has no rice, but montana didnt have corey dillon and moroney. Agreed both QBs lost in the playoffs, but I believe Joe was more clutch and I dont think Brady will get a 4th ring.. I believe you underestimate the talent and consistancy to constantly win when everything is riding on it.

12 feet, 1 inch....

 

[switz]

I can't believe Tom Brady is even being compared to these two....