Adam Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Would he? It's not like he didn't have loaded teams on Indy, and in Denver they rebuilt the whole thing for him and he still failed. Something happens to Peyton when the lights get bright, he fades. It's just his MO. I'd say he isn't the player he was before the injury. He really wears down over the season and he gets hurt more often. He's had a great career
Deranged Rhino Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I'd say he isn't the player he was before the injury. He really wears down over the season and he gets hurt more often. He's had a great career He has had a fabulous career. A sure-fire first ballot HOF QB who rightfully owns plenty of regular season passing records. No argument from me there.
ProcessAccepted Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) I was surprised that Brady is ahead of Montana in the poll. Montana's touch on the ball is still the best that I've ever seen, plus he played at a time when the rules gave the CB a chance against the WR. The argument that he had a great team with the 49ers is weakened a little by his success in KC after he was jettisoned for being past his prime. I agree with many of the posters that there is no single GOAT, but if I had to pick someone it has to go to Joe "There's John Candy" Montana. A little out dated - should be 3-3 and have included Butler's interception Edited February 4, 2015 by Catch it Sammy
cage Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) As much as I hate to admit it.... the answer has to be Brady. When I think of the offensive players he's had. Other than Randy Moss for a couple years and Gronk in the last few, he's had zero no HOFers to play with him or even perennial All-Pros. That's just amazing. They never won a SB while having Randy Moss and while Gronk is an incredible TE, he hasn't done it long enough to be a HOFer yet. He's done it with the likes of Julian Edelman, Deon Branch, Kevin Faulk, Troy Brown and not much else. What other QB on the list can you say that about? Every other one of the G.O.A.T. candidates had HOFers at the skill positions.... the other guys had Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed, James Lofton, Jerry Rice, Franco Harris, Lynn Swann, John Mackey, Dwight Clark, Terrell Davis, Marvin Harrison, Edgerrin James... no comparison Edited February 4, 2015 by cage
metzelaars_lives Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 win or lose 4 in a row ... you can't beat that. funny with the above list people will include Marino and ignore Kelly. beyond that Joe Montana Pees When Sits has had too many cheating scandals, Tuck Rules and REF favoritism to rate the Greatest of All Time Dan Marino is a greater all time QB than Jim Kelly. No one in their right mind would dispute that. Marino is a top 5-10, Kelly is lucky to be considered top 15. The answer is this: Tom Brady is the greatest QB of all time. However I have changed my mind a bit and now agree with the lot of you that there may be an asterisk attached to this run by the Pats. I think the multiple scandals really cloud the conversation. Scandals aside however, Brady is hands down the greatest QB of all time. The only other guy you could even make an argument for is Unitas because he was so superior for his era. So I would qualify it by saying Brady is the greatest QB post-merger. I was surprised that Brady is ahead of Montana in the poll. Montana's touch on the ball is still the best that I've ever seen, plus he played at a time when the rules gave the CB a chance against the WR. The argument that he had a great team with the 49ers is weakened a little by his success in KC after he was jettisoned for being past his prime. I agree with many of the posters that there is no single GOAT, but if I had to pick someone it has to go to Joe "There's John Candy" Montana. A little out dated - should be 3-3 and have included Butler's interception And anyone who thinks 4-0 is better than 4-2 (which it obviously isn't) can't also argue that Kelly's accomplishment was great (which it was).
Deranged Rhino Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 And anyone who thinks 4-0 is better than 4-2 (which it obviously isn't) can't also argue that Kelly's accomplishment was great (which it was). How is a 100% winning percentage worse than a 66% winning percentage? I think you need to brush up on your math.
KD in CA Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Montana played when teams could actually play defense. Bingo. I presume the Brady voters are primarily under 30 so don't really remember the NFL when you could play defense. Brady never gets touched, and if he does there's frequently some bullsh-- 15 yard penalty for someone's fingernail grazing his helmet. Do people really not understand the difference in the game today?
cage Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 How is a 100% winning percentage worse than a 66% winning percentage? I think you need to brush up on your math. Come'on.... leading a team to 6 Super Bowls is greater than 4 Super Bowls... even more elementary math
Deranged Rhino Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Come'on.... leading a team to 6 Super Bowls is greater than 4 Super Bowls... even more elementary math It isn't if you lose two of them and you're comparing yourself to a guy who went undefeated.
johnwalter Posted February 4, 2015 Author Posted February 4, 2015 How is a 100% winning percentage worse than a 66% winning percentage? I think you need to brush up on your math. 4-2 is better than 4-0 because 4-0 simply means Montana lost earlier in the playoffs...
cage Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Bingo. I presume the Brady voters are primarily under 30 so don't really remember the NFL when you could play defense. Brady never gets touched, and if he does there's frequently some bullsh-- 15 yard penalty for someone's fingernail grazing his helmet. Do people really not understand the difference in the game today? Sure, but free agency and salary caps also make it much more difficult to stay consistently good in today's game. 4-2 is better than 4-0 because 4-0 simply means Montana lost earlier in the playoffs... exactly
Deranged Rhino Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 4-2 is better than 4-0 because 4-0 simply means Montana lost earlier in the playoffs... On no planet is 4-2 better than 4-0. The point is to win, not just get in.
metzelaars_lives Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Bingo. I presume the Brady voters are primarily under 30 so don't really remember the NFL when you could play defense. Brady never gets touched, and if he does there's frequently some bullsh-- 15 yard penalty for someone's fingernail grazing his helmet. Do people really not understand the difference in the game today? So by your logic the QB's of the 70's were necessarily greater than the QB's of the 80's because they got hit even harder then. By your logic a QB could not come along and be as great today because they don't get hit as much. By your logic Babe Ruth wasn't that great because pitchers today are obviously far superior. And Wayne Gretzky wasn't that great because it's way harder to score today. All you can do is compare people relative to their respective eras. In Joe Montana's era it was also EASIER to keep a collection of star players on the same team- which the 49ers did and the Patriots absolutely have not. You could certainly argue that Montana's job was tougher than Brady's (not in every facet it wasn't) because he got hit more but I see no correlation in who is greater because of it. I like that you are waxing nostalgic on this one but you are simply wrong. On no planet is 4-2 better than 4-0. The point is to win, not just get in. So Marino's 0-1 is definitely better than Kelly's 0-4 because he didn't lose as many, right? I mean if you are 0-4 in anything in sports that is worse than being 0-1.
Deranged Rhino Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 So Marino's 0-1 is definitely better than Kelly's 0-4 because he didn't lose as many, right? I mean if you are 0-4 in anything in sports that is worse than being 0-1. No. 4-0 is better than 4-2 every time. On the biggest stage, in the biggest game, against defenses that could actually guard the receiver, Montana was undefeated. Perfect. Brady has been beaten twice on the biggest stage and needed two FGs and a late INT to win three of his four rings. That's not better in any way, shape, or form.
metzelaars_lives Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 On no planet is 4-2 better than 4-0. The point is to win, not just get in. Actually I'm not done with this yet. How can you devote so much time and energy to a website about football and possess such an utterly preposterous opinion. So Montana is a notch greater because he got upset at home by the Giants in the 1990 NFC Championship game rather than had he won that game and then lost to the Bills in a close game in the Super Bowl that year? Really think about what you are saying. You are also dismissing the accomplishment the Bills made by getting there.
Adam Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Actually I'm not done with this yet. How can you devote so much time and energy to a website about football and possess such an utterly preposterous opinion. So Montana is a notch greater because he got upset at home by the Giants in the 1990 NFC Championship game rather than had he won that game and then lost to the Bills in a close game in the Super Bowl that year? Really think about what you are saying. You are also dismissing the accomplishment the Bills made by getting there. Actually, it was the 49ers that lost that game. Not Joe Montana.
metzelaars_lives Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Bottom line there it is a waste of time arguing with the sour grapes Patriots haters. It is a lost cause. Actually, it was the 49ers that lost that game. Not Joe Montana. Alright buddy, Montana was the 49ers' QB that day. He was the QB of record. What is your point?
Adam Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Bottom line there it is a waste of time arguing with the sour grapes Patriots haters. It is a lost cause. Alright buddy, Montana was the 49ers' QB that day. He was the QB of record. What is your point? Wins and losses don't get attributed to the quarterback.
metzelaars_lives Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) No. 4-0 is better than 4-2 every time. On the biggest stage, in the biggest game, against defenses that could actually guard the receiver, Montana was undefeated. Perfect. Brady has been beaten twice on the biggest stage and needed two FGs and a late INT to win three of his four rings. That's not better in any way, shape, or form. That is just easily refutable fill that doesn't aid your argument whatsoever. In 3 of those 4 he was also throwing to the greatest football player of all time. Meanwhile for three of Brady's he was throwing to Deion Branch, Troy Brown and David Givens. Wins and losses don't get attributed to the quarterback. Of course they do. Go on football reference. QB's have win-loss records just like pitchers and goalies. Done with this one. Next. Edited February 4, 2015 by metzelaars_lives
Adam Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 That is just easily refutable fill that doesn't aid your argument whatsoever. In 3 of those 4 he was also throwing to the greatest football player of all time. Meanwhile for three of Brady's he was throwing to Deion Branch, Troy Brown and David Givens. Of course they do. Go on football reference. QB's have records just like pitchers and goalies. Done with this one. Next. I do this professionally. They can claim anything they want to make a story. It doesn't make them right. Now you're done with this........
Recommended Posts