Hard to argue against that much hardware. You're doing something right.
No argument from me, and I hate the Niners. Always been an AFC guy.
NFL Off Season
- Thread starter Nick M
- Start date
- Status
Brady's certainly the most experienced with 28 SB quarters played. Montana played 16 SB quarters. You take Montana in his prime, and Brady this year; which would you want to start this season's SB? Montana in his prime, or Brady today, for this season's SB starter?
I don't know who I'd pick. I'd need a long time to give my final answer.
[Oh, in case it wasn't clear, the reason for the exercise is, you are betting the farm on the one you pick. Which one will bring home the hardware? You need a guaranteed win, or you lose your home and all your earthly possessions and money, and your family, if he loses. Which one do you pick? I don't know. I'm leaning toward Montana, except that Brady has seen everything by now and nothing could surprise him, but maybe something will surprise him. Maybe Brady would lose. Maybe Montana in his prime would lose. I'm betting the farm, so I have to be right.]
Who would you pick?
Joe Montana was easy to like.
I think I'd take Brady. He came back and beat the Rams for his first. The last was simply unmatched. Isn't Montana a little guy?
Without a doubt, if he had won one of those Giants games, it would be easy for me to go with Brady. This is all assuming he's injury-free this season of course, this being a hypothetical question and all. He and the Pats lost to Eli and Coughlin's Giants twice, both times entering into the game commanding favorites. If either of those goes NE's way, then it's an easy call. But they lost both times. That's why it's tough for me.
Six-two, like Brees. Who has won a SB with a lot less than Brady took into a couple of losses.
Tom was carried by his kicker early. That first Rams game? 149 yds, 59% completion, 1 td, 86 rating. Not bad. He helped in getting the win, if not quite playing at a pro bowl level in the big game.
In fact, that was the only td of the playoffs that year for Brady.
lain:Now to be fair, Montana's first SB wasn't much better. 157 yds, 63% completion and 2 tds (one rushing) against no picks and a 100 rating. Okay, Montana's was much better.
In fact, Brady's first three rings were decided by his one day HOF kicker (as were more than a few of the games that got them there) and without him Brady had a long, dry run and a three years to make it back in time to get a loss from Peyton's little brother.
Brady is a truly gifted qb, but he's not the best regular season qb. He's not the best playoff qb. And he isn't the best SB qb. So...
He went into one of them with the best offense in NFL history. Stack that with the 3 by fgs from early in the GOAT myth building and the only reason people are trying to make the case for him is the number of rings. But I'd say you give the undefeated Montana the chance and he's two rings up.
Like telling a Dodgers fan that Joe D had a winning smile.Joe Montana was easy to like.
Kind of like the Alabama-Ohio State game a couple of years ago. That big armed QB threw it a long way, and their receiver could run under them. He did make pretty good decisions in that game though.
Which reminds me, opening weekend is huge. I'll get that thread started soon. The short answer will sound like a broken record. Alabama, Florida State (just loaded) and Ohio State. USC, Penn State, and Michigan all right there. If one of the three in the Big Ten East runs the table, you know they are in.
He didn't come back, Ty Law was awesome that day.
If I had to bet the farm on this season's SB, and if my pick didn't win it, then I'd lose the farm, and my choice was between today's Tom Brady, and Joe Montana in his prime, it's tough but I'd go with Montana. I think that Brady's odds of winning the game are very good, but I think Montana's odds would be shorter.
* Other considerations, again thinking about losing the farm if I'm wrong:
Rodgers: not after last season's playoffs
Aikman in his prime: close, but Brady over him
Flacco in his prime when he's hot: Montana still
Big Ben: no
Brady in 2006: Today's Brady over him
* Other considerations, again thinking about losing the farm if I'm wrong:
Rodgers: not after last season's playoffs
Aikman in his prime: close, but Brady over him
Flacco in his prime when he's hot: Montana still
Big Ben: no
Brady in 2006: Today's Brady over him
Last edited:
It is hard to get around the most important goose egg a QB can have in the Super Bowl. Joe Montana in the house. I forgot he ponied up some Marino/Favre/Warner type yards against the Bengals. The Bengal defense was solid. As shown by holding that stacked offense to only 20 points.
With two of the late ones coming off an unbelievably bad call by Seattle almost in the end zone and a historic offensive collapse in the second half of the SB (the Bills will be sending champagne for that one). Not to mention he was mostly a present but unaccounted for when they won the first ring.
It's only deeply impressive if you look at the rings and ignore the back story.
That's just false.
No, I've literally gone through his resume as a qb game by game. First game he graded out around mid 80s. One td and under a hundred and fifty yards. He wasn't Brady then. He was just a young qb with a great coach and a HOF clutch kicker. Heck, that single td was the only one he threw in that entire playoffs. Three games, one td passing. He did run for one in the first playoff game that year, to offset his int to 0 tds throwing.
Seattle was a gimme and Atlanta folded for an entire half. A single fg and Brady loses. He was excellent in both, but without a ring to show for it no one would care.
Or, he's lucky not to be 3-4.
I don't care what you've done though. I care what Brady's done. And your characterization of him is usually unfairly degrading, and this latest post of yours is only the latest example of that.
We've hashed out this season already. Everything was the same except it was Drew Bledsoe who started the season under center, and the Pats were headed for another average season. Then Brady came in and NE started winning, all the way to the SB. Was there some intangible at play that caused the team to suddenly live up to their underlying potential, or that prompted them all to play out of their skulls? Who knows. We do know that Brady won two of the last three SBs while Adam V. was at home watching on his TV, and also that while Vinitieri's clutch kicks were certainly important factors, and that Vinitieri can't do anything to get himself into his own range, it was his kick in the snow against the Raiders that was the most clutch kick that season, if you examine them all side-by-side. His other kicks were makable kicks, not miracles like you portray them to be.
And either NYG game could have gone the other way too, since both were decided by less likely events than the Seattle and Atlanta games. Coaches make poor play calls sometimes, and teams collapse sometimes. The two miracle catches that decided the Giants SBs were million-to-1 shots, both of which went against NE.
Or, I guess you're lucky, that he's not 6-1.
And, why are we talking about a QB who's been in seven SBs with the word "lucky?" Again, that's you and your unfair degradation of him.
You just owned Town
Super. Glad you got that off your chest. Now let's look at facts.
He's played qb for one of the best organizations in memory and one of the best coaches I've seen. And along the way he's grown into the role of one of the best qbs I've seen.
And he's still lucky that he is't 3-4. He still was largely ineffective in his first playoff run and his SB performance wouldn't have and didn't raise any GOAT in potential speculation. Continuing...
Rather, I've consistently put him in my top ten all time, noted that among a number of great qbs he's arguably the best of his generation. If that's degrading you have a peculiar dictionary. Now back to the facts.
Bledsoe was a tough guy, but he wasn't the qb that Brady was by that point (and hardly up to him before).
Here's what a seasoned Bledsoe looked like the year before Brady took the team:
58% comp, 3,200+ yds, 17 tds against 13 ints and a qb rating of 77.3. That's excellent if you're a back up, but as a starter? It's mediocre and he was sliding, had been for a couple of years. His best years were mid 80s. He never saw the 90s.
Tom's first full year saw him hit a more effective version of Bledsoe's near best. That's not because Tom was great. It's because at that time he was good, and good was better than what Drew brought to their system.
In the immediate two years of Bledsoe's decline the team went 8-8 and 5-11. But for the three years before they'd gone 11-5, 10-6, and 9-7. Bledsoe was, for whatever reason (because he regained something in Buffalo) sliding and taking a solid team with him. The team wasn't going anywhere without the change. They believed they could be competitive with decent qb play. They'd been decent the years preceding the two year slide when Bledsoe was still producing for them.
Brady matched those earlier, better numbers and a good team started winning again.
In the playoffs his rookie status caught up with him as better teams with a book on the kid limited his effectiveness (again, 1 passing td, 1 rushing td in three games against 1 int). The team won anyway. Nothing to be ashamed of and they don't get there without him, but it's the stuff of forgetting if they don't get back and he doesn't get better.
In point of fact, Brady isn't very good in his second playoff run until the SB. There he really comes into his own and the chatter begins in terms of his potential.
It's not a mystery. I just explained it.
We know he couldn't have gotten to the first three or won the first ring without Adam. And without those there's no legend. Maybe no return. It happens.
I haven't said they were miracles. They were mostly made in range, but often in conditions that belied that and those three rings were won by the margin of his kicks. Ask Buffalo how easy that is.
I'm not sure that's true. A historic second half collapse and an int that never should have been thrown that close in are both fairly bizarre. A wr making a spectacular catch? That happens all the time in the NFL.
But Brady wasn't very good in the first one with that record setting offense. One td from a team that averaged 38 a game. And Brady went from an average play of over 100 rating in that regular season to an 82 when it mattered most, a capstone and a perfect season gone... But he had the insulation of those close rings to shield him, along with the last impression, as Brady was terrific in the third ring series of games.
I didn't call them miracle kicks, and those were awesome catches, but that's what the men are paid for.
But the first game shouldn't have been close. No one has anointed that Giant's defense one of the all-time best. Everyone had Brady's offense in that light. A catch, lucky or not, by Eli's underdogs shouldn't have mattered. What Tom and that offense failed to do was close to the same magnitude of Atlanta's failure, only Atlanta lacked the cover and a catch to hang it on.
I never pulled against him in a SB, so I don't get the "I'm lucky." See, not being a homer doesn't make me his enemy or incapable of appreciating the greatness he grew into. But I have a perspective that isn't fueled by emotion or association. Any of those three pt SBs are up for grabs. Seattle and Atlanta gave their rings away.
He's great, but he's also very lucky.
Kelly made four in a row. No one else has managed it. Norwood makes the kick against the Giants who knows? Luck factors in close and Brady has won several really, really close. That's why.
Only a homer would believe that.
And only a monumental doofus would try to give a trophy to a team before the other team got the ball back with time.
Before I address Town's latest, I've got another hypothetical bet to propose.
Conditions are the same, wherein you've got to bet the farm on this upcoming season's SB game.
Which QB would you bet the farm on, and if they lost, you lose the farm, if your choice is between any QB who is under 40 today, Tom Brady today, or any QB who is older than 40, at 40? IOW a 40-year-old Joe Montana, Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, Troy Aikman, Terry Bradshaw, Brett Favre, Jim Elway, etc.
To me, this one's a cinch. Brady. Period.
Conditions are the same, wherein you've got to bet the farm on this upcoming season's SB game.
Which QB would you bet the farm on, and if they lost, you lose the farm, if your choice is between any QB who is under 40 today, Tom Brady today, or any QB who is older than 40, at 40? IOW a 40-year-old Joe Montana, Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, Troy Aikman, Terry Bradshaw, Brett Favre, Jim Elway, etc.
To me, this one's a cinch. Brady. Period.
Okay.
Which is what "bet the farm" means.
lain: So, okay again then.What the...
Why stop there? Why not list qbs with his literal birthday. He's a shoe-in there.
Or, just make it about any qb in their prime. Montana. Not even that close. 40 year old qbs? Can't really make a fair comparison. Some men, like Favre, played their best year around that age. Most are physically done. Most of the older crowd was, largely because defenses were allowed to beat them silly. Today a qb gets hit, but is and has been much more protected than the guys who played twenty years ago. And athletes are better conditioned/sports medicine is much improved, etc.
Aikman? Great game manager. Not in the conversation for one game unless I don't have to lean heavily on the qb.
Bradshaw? Love the guy, but overrated. Threw the odd home run to fine wrs, had a big arm, mobility, but not consistent enough.
Elway? Late Elway's head on young Elway's body and who knows?
Marino? Great player. I'd like a better head though. I'd take Peyton over Marino for that reason, giving up some arm strength.
It's Montana. Not even close for the reasons and stats available to anyone who pays attention.
The Brady/Manning competition would be an interesting one. I'm not sure which way I go. In their prime both put up great numbers. Brady has more athleticism and arm strength. No one reads defenses like Peyton. I'd feel good about either choice. Depends on the talent I have on hand and what I need for them to do. Peyton is the Larry Bird of qbs. Great and makes good better. Brady is more like Magic. Not as inspirational, but with that coaching and team he doesn't really have to be. Could he be? Probably. Could Peyton have those rings with that coaching and consistently solid defenses? Probably. It's a push for me.
Yep. Brady, hands down
- Status