Brady deserves his respect, but at the end of the day - what Montana did in the 80s - BEFORE Jerry Rice were still some great feats too, those shouldn't be discredited. Montana is a better QB especially in clutch moments.
In no way am I taking anything away from Montana, people don't realize he won 2 SBs w/o Jerry Rice BUT his overall team was better and his Ds were MUCH better. I have no issue w/ anyone having Montana as #1, he is very worthy. In the SB era it's clearly btw Montana and Brady. Joe was 4-0 in SBs and never threw an INT BUT they faced inferior teams in a weak era for AFC football. The parity in the NFL today makes the teams a lot closer, there are no real dynasties where one or 2 teams are much more talented and can stay together. 9 title games, 6 SBs in this era is beyond spectacular.
Read who I was quoting and responding to. It was Patriot fan langdon1975 - not you. Who's following who here, and who's acting like a self-absorbed, self-centered 5 year old?
now Rodgers was banged up, that's the excuse? he was healthier against Seattle than he was in beating Dallas and he was excellent against Dallas so I don't buy that excuse.
Montana's Super Bowl statistics are (4-0) with 11TD 0INT yet there is some discussion to put Brady ahead of him while losing 2 Super Bowls to Eli Manning? Am I reading this right? Haha.
Eli made those plays on the overrated Pats D's, Brady gave his D late leads in both SBs. Joe's SB #s are incredible BUT he faced far inferior teams as the AFC was brutal back then and that has to be taken into account.
Saying the Seahawks defense wasn't as good they were last seaaon, doesn't mean they're a medicore defense like the Cowboys. And Rodgers was inconsistent in fhe first half of the divisonal round playoff game.. what happened against Seattle was expected by pretty much every football fan who watched these teama throughout the regular seaaon. I never said that the Hawks defense wasn't good or great (they are), but I'd take the '13 Hawks defense over the '14 defense any day of the week. They were a deeper, healthier unit at the time.
So, you're saying Brady would be better if they had lost in the Divisional round in 2008 and 2012? This logic is mind boggling.
The real SB was the NFCCGs back then, that I agree with. Brady had some great teams too though when they first won their SBs. That defense w/ all pros? Corey Dillion? If anything the AFC has been pretty weak this decade also to an extent, especially this season. Colts, Broncos very overrated teams.
Answer this junc: Is there anything wrong with putting Montana, Brady or Manning at #1? It is just a person's opinion. Clearly all 3 are great. Many factors go into each of their stats and Super Bowl wins (and losses). Can't go wrong with any of them.
That is an interesting way to look at it. As are many titles and title losses. That is why I just look at on field play, and the occasional statistics. Doing that, I find Peyton Manning to be a better quarterback than Tom Brady. It is definitely close, but unfair to look at it as 4 titles to 1 so Brady is better. Or (4-2) in SB vs. (1-2). It is much more than that.
Those NE D's were always overrated early in Brady's career w/ the possible exception of 2001. Dillon was around for 1 of the SBs. The NFC has been a little stronger in recent years but not by much. In the 80s the gap was HUGE.
To further make the point, it hurts Brady that he made the SB those years when you can look at Montana's 1986 and 1987 divisional game losses (Both, ironically, to the Giants great defensive teams)? http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MontJo01/gamelog/post/
Montana or Brady? No, Manning? doesn't belong in the discussion. we are al entitled to our opinions, you can feel however you want. I wouldn't really argue if someone put Joe #1 or even a few other guys but I will argue against Peyton. he has done less w/ more than any of the top QBs. If you want to win SBs you can go wrong w/ Peyton.
It is interesting that Brady has won 4 Super Bowls and that doesn't include the season he went 18-0. Haha.
This is a load of shit. Brady isn't even the best QB of his generation, Manning is, obviously. Aaron Rogers is also a better QB. Dan Marino was a better QB than Brady and he never won a ring.
Okay, so Manning did bad against the Seahawks in the SB last year. How did Brady do in the SB against the Seahawks last year? Oh, he didn't make it because Manning's team was there? Hmm, so what you're saying is that the QB isn't the only position on the football field? And that sometimes the best QB in the league doesn't get to the SB (let alone win it)? The truth is that his entire career, Brady played with a Top 5 all-time head coach, who was cheating, and provided above average defenses. On the other hand, Manning has had terrible coaches (including Dungy) and terrible defenses (that were predicated entirely on Manning getting them the lead so they didn't have to defend the run) for the most part. Is Brady great? Sure. Is he anywhere near Montana, Marino or Peyton Manning? Well, that settles it. Next discussion?
Who cares who Montana beat? Until last night Brady beat the Eagles and Panthers. Yeah he won a game in which his team played the Rams but the only reason he even had a chance in that game was because of his defense and likely some help from the AV department. Sorry man 11 TD's and 0 INT's in 4 games says the guy is badass. His performance against the Bengals is still probably the most clutch performance ever in the SB. Those last few minutes were like watching Mozart perform or Da Vinci paint Mona Lisa, it was a masterpiece and it will never be duplicated.
