It is now time for the Brady GOAT case

[Bruins29]

For one, today defenders can't breathe on a receiver without a penalty so getting yards
today is lot easier that when Montana played.
.

I will never by this as a factor to support that Montana was better. Sure, it was harder for Joe to complete a pass because the opponents cornerbacks could hang on Joes receivers. So what, Joes cornerbacks did the same thing to the opposing receivers making it impossible for them to complete passes.

Same as Bradys receivers cant be touched. Well, the same goes for TBs opposition. How is this an advantage for Joe when both Quarterbacks they faced head to head played under the exact same conditions?

The salary cap is real as it gave certain teams a huge advantage who were lucky enough to stockpile players.. The 49ers of that generation had a stocked team of all pros and hall of famers that they were able to keep together. The oposing teams of that time were not able to take advantage of it.

 

[neuronet]

Doesn't Montana have 11 touchdowns, 0 interceptions in his Super Bowls? Gotta admit, that is really impressive. Stephen Smith brought that up too. Note I like him, not sure about the hate: he was very impressed with Brady, just not as GOAT. I think there is room for reasonable disagreement here, though for me the fact that Brady has been doing so well so long, and in the era of the salary cap, pushes me toward him.

Skip Bayless does a pretty good job defending Brady as GOAT.

You can listen at the link below, the GOAT discussion starts at about 25 minutes in:
http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=12267947

Someone should write a list of Smith's points, and a rebuttal.

 

[JR4]

I will never by this as a factor to support that Montana was better. Sure, it was harder for Joe to complete a pass because the opponents cornerbacks could hang on Joes receivers. So what, Joes cornerbacks did the same thing to the opposing receivers making it impossible for them to complete passes.

Same as Bradys receivers cant be touched. Well, the same goes for TBs opposition. How is this an advantage for Joe when both Quarterbacks they faced head to head played under the exact same conditions?

The salary cap is real as it gave certain teams a huge advantage who were lucky enough to stockpile players.. The 49ers of that generation had a stocked team of all pros and hall of famers that they were able to keep together. The oposing teams of that time were not able to take advantage of it.

"... Joes cornerbacks did the same thing to the opposing receivers making it impossible for them to complete passes."

And just how did opposing receivers effect Joe's passing stats....

Att/Comp/%
Brady 7168/4551/63.5%
Montana 5391/3409/63.2%

Yards ???? should be yards per year not total
Brady 53,258
Montana 40,551

TDs
Brady 392 5.5%
Montana 273 5.1%

Ints
Brady 143 2.0%
Montana 139 2.6%​

..... How?

 

[DaBronxPats14]

Now?! He was before this SB Win and Brady isn't done yet. No reason why he can't win at least One more or even two providing Def stays in tact key parts here stay or added.

 

[patsfan13]

If Manning comes back I'm sure the media will make a case in September and October but by January they'll be quiet as usual.

For someone to argue Montana, there really are only two small points left:

Montana has a better playoff QBR
Montana is undefeated in SBs

I agree with most how the undefeated SB argument is flawed, but someone could still argue it. Brady has nearly every other statistic/measuring stick.

Being a QB is about leadership and winning both in regular season and playoffs.

This is regardless of the era. Although the start of the modern QB we see now started with Unitas in the 50's IMO.

Brady is the GOAT by this measure by far the highest winning % in the regular seasonand on teacjk to become the first QB with over 200 regular season wins. Already the leader in AB wins (tied with 2 others), most conference championships and most wins.

No one else is really close at this point.

 

[Ring 6]

This whole idea of a GOAT for a QB going back some 50 plus years is ridiculous.

How can you possibly make a legitimate comparison between two different eras of football?
It's like saying
man A can do a vertical of 10 inches
man B can do a vertical 30 inches
therefore man B is better at jumping than man A
but NOT true . because man A was jumping on earth and man B was jumping on the moon

Conditions when Montana played were much different than they are now.
For one, today defenders can't breathe on a receiver without a penalty so getting yards
today is lot easier that when Montana played.
Then there is salary cap. Now it's harder to surround a QB with top quality receivers without
reducing quality at other positions. So Montana had an advantage in this respect.

But really, too may variables to make a valid comparison over 50 plus years.
Now you could say TB is the GOAT for the last 15 or 20 years .... this is a valid assertion, IMO.

Then why would you even post in a thread like this?
If you feel it is a bad topic, stay out of it.
I think that since they started playing football the point is to win games, and win championships.
Tom Brady has done more of that, while having as large a role in that success, as anyone ever.

 

[Ring 6]

Doesn't Montana have 11 touchdowns, 0 interceptions in his Super Bowls? Gotta admit, that is really impressive. Stephen Smith brought that up too. Note I like him, not sure about the hate: he was very impressed with Brady, just not as GOAT. I think there is room for reasonable disagreement here, though for me the fact that Brady has been doing so well so long, and in the era of the salary cap, pushes me toward him.

Skip Bayless does a pretty good job defending Brady as GOAT.

You can listen at the link below, the GOAT discussion starts at about 25 minutes in:
http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=12267947

Someone should write a list of Smith's points, and a rebuttal.

I thought that I did.
I do not like Steven A Smith, and his football knowledge is weak. "Very impressed with Brady, just not as GOAT" is an insult.
I posted the comparison at the beginning of this thread.
I don't understand how anyone can take a guy seriously who thinks 2 one and dones is better than getting to the SB twice but losing.

 

[JR4]

Then why would you even post in a thread like this?
If you feel it is a bad topic, stay out of it.
I think that since they started playing football the point is to win games, and win championships.
Tom Brady has done more of that, while having as large a role in that success, as anyone ever.

Really ... so the only people who should respond to your threads are those who agree with you???
If you can't take the heat man ... don't post.

 

[Ring 6]

Really ... so the only people who should respond to your threads are those who agree with you???
If you can't take the heat man ... don't post.

You entered into a discussion to say in your opinion there shouldn't be a discussion.
What is the point of that?

There is no 'heat' in you making a post that I find pointless. I was just pointing out that if you have nothing to say about the topic, perhaps there is a different thread that would be better for you.

 

[Fencer]

The only remaining case for Montana is one of era, since he played in a less QB-friendly one. At this point I don't think even that's enough for him, though, because whatever disadvantage he gets from that should be offset by having Jerry Rice. Brady's the GOAT.

We have bingo!

There's also a case for guys from much longer ago, much like I think Bill Russell is still the basketball GOAT. But that's it. Brady and Montana are the only two candidates more recent than Unitas, and I now lean to Brady.

 

[Fencer]

I will never by this as a factor to support that Montana was better. Sure, it was harder for Joe to complete a pass because the opponents cornerbacks could hang on Joes receivers. So what, Joes cornerbacks did the same thing to the opposing receivers making it impossible for them to complete passes.

Same as Bradys receivers cant be touched. Well, the same goes for TBs opposition. How is this an advantage for Joe when both Quarterbacks they faced head to head played under the exact same conditions?

The salary cap is real as it gave certain teams a huge advantage who were lucky enough to stockpile players.. The 49ers of that generation had a stocked team of all pros and hall of famers that they were able to keep together. The oposing teams of that time were not able to take advantage of it.

You're missing the point. Brady and Montana have comparable offensive stats. So if one had a significantly greater degree of difficulty achieving those stats, he arguably was better.

 

[wolverinejoe80]

just shut haters up by winning 6SBs. 6 out of 8. and there won't be any 'GOAT CASE' 'brady vs. montana' threads.

just shut them all up by winning 2 more. 6 sounds great. brady will be michael jordan of football. and he will come back better than ever. this train isn't over yet.

 

[JR4]

You entered into a discussion to say in your opinion there shouldn't be a discussion.
What is the point of that?

There is no 'heat' in you making a post that I find pointless. I was just pointing out that if you have nothing to say about the topic, perhaps there is a different thread that would be better for you.

I did not say "there shouldn't be a discussion". I questioned the span of time in talking about a GOAT.
Please re-read my original post for clarity.

 

[JR4]

The only remaining case for Montana is one of era, since he played in a less QB-friendly one. At this point I don't think even that's enough for him, though, because whatever disadvantage he gets from that should be offset by having Jerry Rice. Brady's the GOAT.

See, this why is so difficult to compare QB's from two different eras. Too many variables. See Jerry Rice could do things back then to get free that would cause penalties by receivers today.

Even comparing two greats of today like Rodgers and Brady can lead to disagreement but I believe
it is more accurate.
Some say using SB wins should not be used to judge because those wins have a lot to do
with team and coaching. But then, so doesn't every game.

 

[Ring 6]

I did not say "there shouldn't be a discussion". I questioned the span of time in talking about a GOAT.
Please re-read my original post for clarity.

GOAT = Greatest Of All Time.
Therefore the timeframe is ever.

 

[Ring 6]

See, this why is so difficult to compare QB's from two different eras. Too many variables. See Jerry Rice could do things back then to get free that would cause penalties by receivers today.

Even comparing two greats of today like Rodgers and Brady can lead to disagreement but I believe
it is more accurate.
Some say using SB wins should not be used to judge because those wins have a lot to do
with team and coaching. But then, so doesn't every game.

You seem to be considering this a mathematical equation.
Certainly human beings are able to THINK and take those type of things into consideration.
If the only items were discussion were ones that had a formula to prove them out, there would be no discussion.

Feel free to make your argument about who you think is the GOAT. To me its Brady.

 

[Ring 6]

I will never by this as a factor to support that Montana was better. Sure, it was harder for Joe to complete a pass because the opponents cornerbacks could hang on Joes receivers. So what, Joes cornerbacks did the same thing to the opposing receivers making it impossible for them to complete passes.

Same as Bradys receivers cant be touched. Well, the same goes for TBs opposition. How is this an advantage for Joe when both Quarterbacks they faced head to head played under the exact same conditions?

The salary cap is real as it gave certain teams a huge advantage who were lucky enough to stockpile players.. The 49ers of that generation had a stocked team of all pros and hall of famers that they were able to keep together. The oposing teams of that time were not able to take advantage of it.

By the way, this entire argument is wrong, because the pass defense rules changed BEFORE Montana entered the NFL.

 

[Ivan]

Jimmy Garrapolo is unbeaten in the Super Bowl and threw no interceptions.

 

[Ring 6]

I did not say "there shouldn't be a discussion". I questioned the span of time in talking about a GOAT.
Please re-read my original post for clarity.

I guess I am guilty of paraphrasing. Since you said this:

This whole idea of a GOAT for a QB going back some 50 plus years is ridiculous

And GOAT means Greatest of All Time, it would seem that someone who says discussing GOAT over 50 years is ridiculous would be saying there shouldn't be a discussion.

 

[JR4]

I guess I am guilty of paraphrasing. Since you said this:



And GOAT means Greatest of All Time, it would seem that someone who says discussing GOAT over 50 years is ridiculous would be saying there shouldn't be a discussion.

OR
just indicating a GOAT can not be determined (ridiculous ) because there are just too many variables when the time frame is 50 years plus which is also a valid conclusion when the discussion is about trying to determine a QB GOAT.