It is now time for the Brady GOAT case

[JR4]

Winning games and championships is the constant across eras. It is definable.

I disagree here if you are using wins to determine the best QB. If you have two very good QBs, like
Tom and Joe, and you look at just wins to determine the Best of the two you are ignoring other
factors that contributed to the wins, such as, defense, offense line, the running game,skilled players and many other factors. It takes a lot more than a great QB to win games and championships.

 

[Ring 6]

OK, here is my Top 10
1. Brady
2. Montana (I think there is just no debating they are 1 and 2 in that order)
3. Unitas
4. Elway
5. Graham
6. Aikman (the anti-Manning. Eschewed stats for winning)
7. Starr (lower than accomplishments because QBs were not as vital in his era)
8. Bradshaw (yes it was a defensive team with a good running game, but QBing 4 titles is QBing 4 titles. Bradshaw gets ripped because they won the first one despite him, and people forget by the end of the run he was the best QB in the NFL)
9. Manning
10. Young (could be much higher if he didn't have to sit for so long)
Close. Marino (take a look at his playoff numbers. He was the reason they didn't get a ring) Favre, Rodgers (could easily break top 10 before its over)

Clearly my standards revolve around winning, not accumulating nice stats while losing, or having good regular seasons and failing in the playoffs.

EDIT:
Left out Staubach who should be 9, pushing Manning to 10 and Young to close.
Hopefully I didn't forget anyone else.

 

[Ring 6]

There were less teams in the league when Montanner played.
That means that statistically alone, the chances of getting to the SB for SF were greater.

Barely. I believe there were 28 teams when Montana played (Carolina, Jax, Houston, Clelvenand added)
I don't think that difference matters.

 

[Ring 6]

I disagree here if you are using wins to determine the best QB. If you have two very good QBs, like
Tom and Joe, and you look at just wins to determine the Best of the two you are ignoring other
factors that contributed to the wins, such as, defense, offense line, the running game,skilled players and many other factors. It takes a lot more than a great QB to win games and championships.

No one is saying look up a number and let that decide it. All of those things can be taken into consideration, but over the course a career they will normalize and be very close anyway (although perception will not because people have agendas).
The QB is by far the most important player on the field. It is very rare to win a Championship without great QB play.
Almost every one of the all-time great QBs and the ones to win multiple SB championships started out on horrible teams, and the teams grew around them.

 

[Ivan]

I disagree here if you are using wins to determine the best QB. If you have two very good QBs, like
Tom and Joe, and you look at just wins to determine the Best of the two you are ignoring other
factors that contributed to the wins, such as, defense, offense line, the running game,skilled players and many other factors. It takes a lot more than a great QB to win games and championships.

True. And Montana was the one surrounded by Hall of Fame players and teams that could stay intact. With number 4 in hand Brady is the GOAT. Failing to get there shouldn't be rewarded.

 

[JR4]

No one is saying look up a number and let that decide it. All of those things can be taken into consideration, but over the course a career they will normalize and be very close anyway (although perception will not because people have agendas).
The QB is by far the most important player on the field. It is very rare to win a Championship without great QB play.
Almost every one of the all-time great QBs and the ones to win multiple SB championships started out on horrible teams, and the teams grew around them.

I agree with your approach here but is it the right way when two QBs are very good? Trying to judge
two great QBs as to which is better is difficult or even impossible especially when they played in different eras. In this case why not just say Tom and Joe were the two best QBs ever.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree with your approach here but is it the right way when two QBs are very good? Trying to judge
two great QBs as to which is better is difficult or even impossible especially when they played in different eras. In this case why not just say Tom and Joe were the two best QBs ever.

Because the question is who is the GOAT. I don't know isn't a very thoughtful answer.
I started the thread by comparing both of their accomplishments.
I find that they are equal in Championships but Brady surpasses Montana in overall playoff success.
I find that Brady surpasses Montana in regular season success. And its not very close.
I find that Brady statistically was better. This is the least important to me, and the differences in era, which are very small by the way, mean little.

What argument is their for Montana?
I think its fair to say the Brady was at least as criticial to his team as Montana was, and probably more. Montana typically had a better running game and better defense.

I put heavy emphasis on ACCOMPLISHMENTS because that is why you play the game. Strip everything else away, and who wins is what matters regardless of how you got there. The difference being that QBs today are by far the primary reason their teams succeed or fail, while in the early 80s and before that was not the case.

Feel free to give reasons that you think Montana should be considered equal to Brady beyond the 4 rings, but I just don't see any, and "I don't know" isn't a valid answer to me.

 

[JR4]

Because the question is who is the GOAT. I don't know isn't a very thoughtful answer.
I started the thread by comparing both of their accomplishments.
I find that they are equal in Championships but Brady surpasses Montana in overall playoff success.
I find that Brady surpasses Montana in regular season success. And its not very close.
I find that Brady statistically was better. This is the least important to me, and the differences in era, which are very small by the way, mean little.

What argument is their for Montana?
I think its fair to say the Brady was at least as criticial to his team as Montana was, and probably more. Montana typically had a better running game and better defense.

I put heavy emphasis on ACCOMPLISHMENTS because that is why you play the game. Strip everything else away, and who wins is what matters regardless of how you got there. The difference being that QBs today are by far the primary reason their teams succeed or fail, while in the early 80s and before that was not the case.

Feel free to give reasons that you think Montana should be considered equal to Brady beyond the 4 rings, but I just don't see any, and "I don't know" isn't a valid answer to me.

I agree. Brady is the Greatest of All Time. You have made good points and even though the eras are different Brady out does Montana enough there should be no question. I can not make a good case for Montana.

 

[Bruins29]

Ieven though the eras are different.

Its irrelevant.

 

[Patriots1364life]

Brady is the goat and montana is butthurt about it. His teammates as well.
Now brady wants number 5.

 

[The Brandon Five]

I disagree here if you are using wins to determine the best QB. If you have two very good QBs, like
Tom and Joe, and you look at just wins to determine the Best of the two you are ignoring other
factors that contributed to the wins, such as, defense, offense line, the running game,skilled players and many other factors. It takes a lot more than a great QB to win games and championships.

The other variable across eras is the length of the season and the post-season. QBs now play more games in both.

 

[Bruins29]

JR4, you can disagree all you want about the Eras TB and JM played in somehow favoring JM but the fact is this. What TB and JM did against each other stat wise is irrelevant. It only matters what they did against their counterparts in their own eras. Now that they have the same amount of rings and TB's stats are measurably better across the board. Its not even worth debating.

 

[JR4]

Its irrelevant.

It is not. QB's, on the average, completed about 20% more passes in today's NFL than they
did in the mid 80's. Back then is was about 18 per game now it's about 21+ per game.
This due to several factors one of which is there are less running plays in today's NFL.
If QB's get more completions in today's NFL some of their stats are going to be better than the
average QB in the 80's. So the era is relevant.

 

[Ring 6]

It is not. QB's, on the average, completed about 20% more passes in today's NFL than they
did in the mid 80's. Back then is was about 18 per game now it's about 21+ per game.
This due to several factors one of which is there are less running plays in today's NFL.
If QB's get more completions in today's NFL some of their stats are going to be better than the
average QB in the 80's. So the era is relevant.

I think this is more of a factor in the Manning, Marino, Favre, Fouts debates than the GOAT debate because stats are not the crux of a GOAT debate.

This may surprise you though. Pass attempts per start, career:

Brady 34.6
Montana 32.9 (the difference is about 27 passes a season)
Marino 34.8 (so in the 80s some QBs were throwing more than Brady does now)
Fouts 32.8 (late 70s/early 80s throwing similar to now)(averaged 35.8 from 79 to 83)
Favre 35.0
Manning 35.9

Before the 1978 line of demarcation with the rule change to the 5 yard chuck rule top QBs threw more like 30 times a game.
Since then there isn't much difference.

 

[goheels22002]

Tim Hasselback thinks Manning is the greatest. ROTFLMAO.

The only possible debate left at this point for anyone who is remotely rational is Montana vs. Brady. And even that one seems pretty settled to anyone who isn't a hater.

Which one? The Manning with the .727 playoff winning percentage or the Manning with the .458 playoff winning percentage?

 

[goheels22002]

All of the era and supporting cast stuff evens out over the long run. Facts is facts. Brady is the GOAT.

Agreed. In this era of free agency, pass rushers can't breathe on the QB unless he's holding the ball when they initiate contact, and DBs can't maul receivers the way they could earlier. It does even out in the long run.

 

[RayRay]

Not to mention Montana played with 12 HOF's...........Brady? just 2.

/thread


*drops mic*

 

[libra957]

In order for Montana to be number 1, you have to "leave out" stuffs. If you don't leave out anything,Brady is better overall,hence why he's now number 1.