Mike Greenberg would take Brady over Montana

[Lurker]

The ATHLETES may be better today, but the player is not.

 

Montana, hands down.

 

Boy, there's an interesting POV. Are you saying the LB's of Montana's era (who typically were no where near fast enough to cover RB's and FBs in the flat) weren't a big reason for the 49ers success?

 

The LB position evolved in direct response to the WCO, with Lawrence Taylor being the new prototype -- guys who could run, cover the flat, take away physical mismatches with RBs. Prior to him, you had OLB's like Ted Hendricks, Jack Ham, etc. who couldn't match up as well against the pass. You also didn't have as much zone blitzing, which was introduced by old friend Dick LeBeau, or as many nickle, dime or disguised coverages.

 

Yes, there were stars in the 70s, 80s and 90s who would have been successful in any era, but the old axiom about "better athletes making better plays" can't be discounted.

[l< j]

I heard Mike Greenberg on Mike and Mike this AM say he would take Brady over Montana

 

Montana, Idaho, Kansas--I don't care, as long as Brady isn't wearing a parachute when he is pushed out of the plane.

 

kj

[Alaska Darin]

Boy, there's an interesting POV. Are you saying the LB's of Montana's era (who typically were no where near fast enough to cover RB's and FBs in the flat) weren't a big reason for the 49ers success?

 

The LB position evolved in direct response to the WCO, with Lawrence Taylor being the new prototype -- guys who could run, cover the flat, take away physical mismatches with RBs. Prior to him, you had OLB's like Ted Hendricks, Jack Ham, etc. who couldn't match up as well against the pass. You also didn't have as much zone blitzing, which was introduced by old friend Dick LeBeau, or as many nickle, dime or disguised coverages.

 

Yes, there were stars in the 70s, 80s and 90s who would have been successful in any era, but the old axiom about "better athletes making better plays" can't be discounted.

No offense man, but Jack Ham was a terrific coverage linebacker - the prototype for that kind of player in today's game.

[Lurker]

No offense man, but Jack Ham was a terrific coverage linebacker - the prototype for that kind of player in today's game.

 

Yeah, you're right. I was thinking of Jack Reynolds and had a brain fart.

[RLflutie7]

Sysytem QB???lol...thats why he played so well at age 38 with a bunch of junk in Kansas City.

Brady is great...but you cant say anyone is BETTER than Montana---especially in big games.He was otherworldly in big situations.

Montana DID have better talent around him--I agree...but he also had better teams he had to play against since it was pre-salary cap.

The fact that Brady is mentioned in the same sentences as Montana is a great compliment to Brady.

When Brady marched down the field completey colly and calmly in that Raider game(after he F U M B L E D ) I knew the guy was something special.He was in a zone--no panic at all---that few QBs achieve.

 

 

People like Brady because he has a stronger arm and is bigger. Montana had junk in KC and also had no running back in that first Superbowl with S.F. He didn't get the all world talent until later in his time at S.F.

 

Brady also won with a questionable running back in the form of Antoione Smith (spelling).

[Willis990]

People like Brady because he has a stronger arm and is bigger. Montana had junk in KC and also had no running back in that first Superbowl with S.F. He didn't get the all world talent until later in his time at S.F.

 

Brady also won with a questionable running back in the form of Antoione Smith (spelling).

 

 

I agree.

[Alaska Darin]

Montana had junk in KC

He had the same thing that Steve Deberg and Dave Kraig had the season's prior - and ended up with virtually the same set stats/record. Oh, and Marcus Allen MADE THE PROBOWL in Montana's first (and most accomplished) season in KC.

no running back in that first Superbowl with S.F. He didn't get the all world talent until later in his time at S.F.

Yeah, Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon sucked. I'll give you that they didn't have much of a running game, but their defense was terrific. They finished rated second in scoring defense in the NFL that season.

[Lurker]

Yeah, Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon sucked.

 

1981 49er Pro Bowlers: Dwight Clark (wr), Randy Cross (ol), Fred Dean (dl), Dwight Hicks (db), Ronnie Lott (db), Joe Montana (qb).

[Alaska Darin]

1981 49er Pro Bowlers: Dwight Clark (wr), Randy Cross (ol), Fred Dean (dl), Dwight Hicks (db), Ronnie Lott (db), Joe Montana (qb).

That was sarcasm, you know.

[stinky finger]

He had the same thing that Steve Deberg and Dave Kraig had the season's prior - and ended up with virtually the same set stats/record. Oh, and Marcus Allen MADE THE PROBOWL in Montana's first (and most accomplished) season in KC.

 

Yeah, Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon sucked. I'll give you that they didn't have much of a running game, but their defense was terrific. They finished rated second in scoring defense in the NFL that season.

Maybe I shouldn't have said I'd take Montana "hands down", because you can make (and have made) a legit argument in favor of TB, but you're certainly sounding as if TB is clearly the choice. That, I just don't believe to be true.

[Tcali]

Right. Brady wouldn't have been able to QB Montana's Niners to success, but IS able to take a team with markedly less talent to 3 SB wins.

 

The game wasn't played at a higher level, other than there were 2 REALLY good teams per conference every season and the gap between the bottom and top was more noticeable than it is today (this is despite the ridiculous arguments from the idiots who, before the season even started, stated the BILLS had almost no talent).

 

Montana in Foxboro in December = disaster. Joe Montana is the example for players who were put in the absolute perfect situation to showcase themselves. He almost never had to play on the road in the playoffs, meaning he ducked the difficult weather conditions that he COULD NOT PLAY IN.

 

Montana's playoff record (excluding Super Bowls):

 

Home: 10 wins, 2 losses.

Road: 2 wins (one of them over the STEVE FULLER QB'd Bears, the other over the the 1988 Bears with Jim McMahon starting his first game in a month), 5 losses. Team averaged 11 PPG in those losses.

ALASKA----the best teams back then would crush the best teams now.Its the salary cap. There is no team now in the same universe as those niner,giant,cowboy teams.

[Lurker]

That was sarcasm, you know.

 

Yep. I was elucidating all the young 'uns.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

You got that right.

 

I find the comparison of Brady to Montana to be a fukkin joke. The quality of play these days is shiit compared to when Montana played. That's thanks to expansion, the salary cap, unrestricted FA, the rise of the NBA (taking away prospects), the pussification of the QB positions (to the point that they should be wearing red practice jerseys during games), and the changes in rules over the past decade to favor offenses and make it harder for defenses.

 

Speaking of Pro Bowlers on the 49'ers back then, care to check the (Pro Bowl) rosters of OTHER teams, like the Giants, Bears, Redskins, and Eagles, just to name a few teams in the NFC? Much less who was coaching these teams?

 

As for Brady specifically, how many Pro Bowls has he made in his 7 year career? He's made 3. How can he be considered "a HOF'er" when he can't even be in the top-3 in the (AT LEAST) AFC for half his starting career?

 

And sorry if I'm WHOLLY unimpressed with Brady fumbling away the Raiders playoff game, only to be saved by the wrong interpretation of a fukkin retarded rule like the "tuck" rule. Much less how he did NOTHING in the Pgh game the following week, yet the team still won without him. Much less how the Pats were able to get away with 14 holding calls (per ESPN) in the AFCCG against the Colts in 2004 (2003 season). And how the Pats failed to reach the playoffs in 2002. Or last year, losing ON THE ROAD to the great Jake "the fake" Plummer (wanna talk about road playoff games? Brady's 0-1, ignoring that Pgh AFCCG in 2001 where he did nothing).

 

And a final note AD, good point about Manning, defense, and switching QB's. Tell me, if you switched Brady and Manning, WHO do you think has the 3 SB rings? Brady? Nope, not considering his illustrious 1-5 record against a HOF coach like Shanahan.

 

Brady's a very good QB. He's got a great coach and like I said, I'd take Belichick. The guy who was REALLY responsible for the Giants' SB wins, with a guy name Phil Simms at QB.

[BuffaloBilliever]

J.P. Losman.

[Hollywood Donahoe]

As for Brady specifically, how many Pro Bowls has he made in his 7 year career? He's made 3. How can he be considered "a HOF'er" when he can't even be in the top-3 in the (AT LEAST) AFC for half his starting career?

I think Brady has his sights set on higher bowls than the Pro Bowl.

 

And sorry if I'm WHOLLY unimpressed with Brady fumbling away the Raiders playoff game, only to be saved by the wrong interpretation of a fukkin retarded rule like the "tuck" rule.

Complain about the rule all you want (although any rule that frees referees from having to make subjective judgments surely has at least some merit), but that was the correct interpretation.

 

Much less how he did NOTHING in the Pgh game the following week, yet the team still won without him.

In that game, Brady completed two-thirds of his passes and threw for over 100 yards in less than a half against a tough defense, and didn't turn the ball over. The Patriots were driving when he was injured, and the TD drive that he started was eventually finished by Bledsoe.

 

Like it or not, that game is counted among Brady's 11 playoff wins, and deservedly so.

 

Much less how the Pats were able to get away with 14 holding calls (per ESPN) in the AFCCG against the Colts in 2004 (2003 season).

You doomed yourself with "per ESPN."

 

I think you and Trey Wingo are the only people on Earth who believe that BS stat.

 

And how the Pats failed to reach the playoffs in 2002.

Making the playoffs in five of your six seasons is a negative, somehow?

 

Or last year, losing ON THE ROAD to the great Jake "the fake" Plummer

Winning 10 of your 11 playoff games is a negative, somehow?

 

(wanna talk about road playoff games? Brady's 0-1, ignoring that Pgh AFCCG in 2001 where he did nothing).

Brady is 2-1 in road playoff games. He won in Pittsburgh in '01-'02 (I know you want to throw that game out, but wanting something doesn't make it so, no matter how bad you want it), he won in Pittsburgh in '04-'05, and he lost in Denver in '05-'06.

 

First he's 1-9 against Shanahan, now the '04-'05 AFCC game never happened - you're getting into AKC territory here, MDB.

 

Brady's a very good QB. He's got a great coach and like I said, I'd take Belichick.

Again, how's Belichick's arm? What are his passing numbers like?

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Correct interpretation of the rule. Tell me HD, what constitutes a "tuck?" And what was the explanation given?

 

And my bad, he is 1-1 on the road in the playoffs. I forgot that game during the 2004 SB season, which as I've told you was a legitimate season because I didn't see any ref help like the previous years. But he DID have an 1,600 yard rusher in Dillon, as well as a great defense.

 

As for that Pgh playoff game, he led the team to ZERO points. His 66% completion percentage, 100 yards, and no turnovers meant jack since he led them to ZERO points. And Bledsoe didn't turn the ball over and scored a TD, despite a poor completion percentage and that over the back pass you like to harp about. And what was that you said about that game; that ANYONE could have duplicated his performance and the team would still have won?

 

Oh and tell me what happened on the Pats' drive BEFORE that one where Brady got injured. I'll tell you; the Pats had 1st and 10 at the Steelers' 36 (Bledsoe took over at the 40), proceeded to lose yardage, and had to punt.

 

And I don't "believe" that stat from ESPN because I actually SAW it happen. I knew there were a bunch of penalties not called, but I was floored to learn there were 14. And ESPN did NOT make them all up.

 

Next you're going to tell me he really deserved that 2001 SB MVP, after throwing for a net 134 yards, with over 1/3 on the final drive where he checked-down on every play against a prevent defense and where his WR's got 2/3 of the yards in RAC. Not to mention his defense essentially scored half the team's points for him (7 in an INT return and 3 when they got a turnover in Vinatieri's range and Brady drove them only 7 yards). I'm sure you had a hand in that, seeing as how he was 4th in voting until the fan vote came into play.

 

Like I said, he's a very good QB. Seems like a decent guy. I just don't think he's the god people make him out to be. So sue me.

[Alaska Darin]

You got that right.

 

I find the comparison of Brady to Montana to be a fukkin joke. The quality of play these days is shiit compared to when Montana played. That's thanks to expansion, the salary cap, unrestricted FA, the rise of the NBA (taking away prospects), the pussification of the QB positions (to the point that they should be wearing red practice jerseys during games), and the changes in rules over the past decade to favor offenses and make it harder for defenses.

Yet defenses are faster, more athletic, and intricate than ever. You act as though Montana played in the head slap era. He didn't. His era was even more offensive oriented than this one and the WCO spawned Bill Belichick, not the other way around.

Speaking of Pro Bowlers on the 49'ers back then, care to check the (Pro Bowl) rosters of OTHER teams, like the Giants, Bears, Redskins, and Eagles, just to name a few teams in the NFC? Much less who was coaching these teams?

Perhaps I'm missing the point, but were there somehow more Pro Bowlers back then? As I said before, the top 3 or 4 teams back then were more stacked, but the rest of each conference was more mediocre. I'm sorry, I see the same great coaches still around. How's Joe Gibbs managing now? He was pretty fuggin' good back then.

As for Brady specifically, how many Pro Bowls has he made in his 7 year career? He's made 3. How can he be considered "a HOF'er" when he can't even be in the top-3 in the (AT LEAST) AFC for half his starting career?

Ruben Brown is the greatest guard ever to lace them up.

And sorry if I'm WHOLLY unimpressed with Brady fumbling away the Raiders playoff game, only to be saved by the wrong interpretation of a fukkin retarded rule like the "tuck" rule. Much less how he did NOTHING in the Pgh game the following week, yet the team still won without him. Much less how the Pats were able to get away with 14 holding calls (per ESPN) in the AFCCG against the Colts in 2004 (2003 season). And how the Pats failed to reach the playoffs in 2002. Or last year, losing ON THE ROAD to the great Jake "the fake" Plummer (wanna talk about road playoff games? Brady's 0-1, ignoring that Pgh AFCCG in 2001 where he did nothing).

When did football not become a team game?

And a final note AD, good point about Manning, defense, and switching QB's. Tell me, if you switched Brady and Manning, WHO do you think has the 3 SB rings? Brady? Nope, not considering his illustrious 1-5 record against a HOF coach like Shanahan.

I don't know. I think the Colts were more individually talented every time the two teams faced off. The Patriots certainly had the better defense but the reality of the situation tells me that CONFIDENCE was the biggest difference between the two teams. The Pats KNEW they were going to win, the Colts hoped they would. Much of that has to do with the differences between the two QBs. There's a reason Peyton Manning has never won anything.

Brady's a very good QB. He's got a great coach and like I said, I'd take Belichick. The guy who was REALLY responsible for the Giants' SB wins, with a guy name Phil Simms at QB.

Phil Simms was a great QB - and he only played in one SB. Simms would have put up ridiculous numbers if he switched places with Montana and got to throw to Rice and Taylor instead of Odessa Turner and Steven Baker. BTW, Belichick didn't have DICK to do with the Giants' offense being able to move the ball at will in both their SB wins.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

I didn't bring up the issue of Pro Bowls originally. The point was you can use the argument both ways.

 

And yes defenses are more intricate, but so too are offenses. And again, offenses have the upperhand what with all the rule changes to favor scoring, not to mention to protect the QB. A couple huge changes off the top of my head were the "no-chuck" rule, "in-the-grasp," and allowing QB's to throw the ball way when outside the tackles.

 

As for the difference between the Colts and Pats, it was mostly coaching. For example, the Bucs just ONE year after firing Dungy, went to and won the SB, with essentially Dungy's team. I like Dungy, but he's NO Belichick. And as they say, defense wins championships, and the Bucs had a great one, the Pats did in their SB years as well, while the Colts never did. And knowing you have a great defense and don't have to carry the team on your back inspires a lot of confidence, wouldn't you say?

 

And I've ALWAYS maintained that football is a team game. No team in NFL history embodied that more than the Pats from 2001-2004. I just didn't like what looked like favoritism given to them.

[Lurker]

his WR's got 2/3 of the yards in RAC.

 

Sounds like the WCO...

 

More grist for the mill:

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/MontJo01.htm

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/BradTo00.htm

[Hollywood Donahoe]

Tell me HD, what constitutes a "tuck?"

To my understanding, a complete end to the throwing motion.

 

And what was the explanation given?

Brady's throwing motion had not completely ended.

 

And my bad, he is 1-1 on the road in the playoffs.

2-1.

 

I forgot that game during the 2004 SB season, which as I've told you was a legitimate season...

They were all legitimate season. The Patriots or the NFL aren't waiting for your approval.

 

And what was that you said about that game; that ANYONE could have duplicated his performance and the team would still have won?

We'll never know whether or not that is the case (obviously), but everyone who watched that game knows Bledsoe's performance was mediocre. The very meaning of the word mediocre implies that anyone average or above could matched or exceeded the performance.

 

I don't profess to know what would've happened had Huard come in instead of Bledsoe, but we do know that the Patriots won the game, Brady got the win (yeah, he did), and Bledsoe gets a tip of the cap from me for getting the save (albeit, a shaky one).

 

Oh and tell me what happened on the Pats' drive BEFORE that one where Brady got injured. I'll tell you; the Pats had 1st and 10 at the Steelers' 36 (Bledsoe took over at the 40), proceeded to lose yardage, and had to punt.

So Brady had a bad drive, and that means he sucks?

 

I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. You keep bringing up weird minutiae, but none of it changes the enormity of Brady's accomplishments. I suspect you know that, though. If anything, I guess I'm trying to get you to realize that acknowledging someone's accomplishments doesn't take away from anyone else's.