Montana's perfect Super Bowls in perspective

[Deus Irae]

Let's not kid ourselves here. Brady has also had bad playoff games.

Montana's 3 year stretch (1985-1987) produced the following QB ratings in 3 one-and-done playoffs:

65.6
34.2
42.0

 

[RobertWeathers]

Nowhere near as embarrassing as those Montana losses to the Giants.

The one in 1986 was the bad one. The other was not as bad.

I'd say the most embarrassing one for Joe was the home game vs MN. 49ers were 13-2 #1 seed. Consensus SB lock. Playing at home, Joe was awful and Walsh pulled him in favor of Young.

 

[VrabelJr]

Montana had a couple of embarrassing showings against the Giants in the playoffs. Brady at least looked competitive against them. Can't fault Brady for being in a different conference and having to play them in the SB as opposed to earlier in the postseason.

Yeah because the 1980s Giants and the 2007/2011s Giants were very similar.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Montana's 3 year stretch (1985-1987) produced the following QB ratings in 3 one-and-done playoffs:

65.6
34.2
42.0

Yea...Going by memory (showing my age here) the 17-3 game he wasn't that bad. The 49-3 game he got knocked out was awful but the worst was the MN game at home. He was awful and Walsh pulled him.

QB rating is tricky to judge sometimes how truly bad a QB was during a game. For Brady, I know hes had some bad QB rating games vs BAL and SD but for me, his worst was DEN on the road. He made some awful, awful decisions at critical times in that game.

 

[mikey m]

Let's not kid ourselves here. Brady has also had bad playoff games.

Of course he has. Every player has. I think we're just trying to knock JM off the insanely huge pedestal he's been placed on.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yea...Going by memory (showing my age here) the 17-3 game he wasn't that bad. The 49-3 game he got knocked out was awful but the worst was the MN game at home. He was awful and Walsh pulled him.

QB rating is tricky to judge sometimes how truly bad a QB was during a game. For Brady, I know hes had some bad QB rating games vs BAL and SD but for me, his worst was DEN on the road. He made some awful, awful decisions at critical times in that game.

Just going by the numbers, Montana's been under 40 (QB rating) twice, while 49.1 is Brady's lowest, and that was against the Ravens, after the Welker ACL injury, in the 2009 playoffs.

On the other hand, while Montana's had the lower rated games, he's also had more of the very highly rated games. Montana had 12 of 23 games with QB ratings over 100, while Brady's had 10 of 29 games with such lofty ratings.

If you want a higher overall playoff rating, and more excellent games, you go with Montana. If you want a lower overall rating, but a more even performance and a (currently) higher winning percentage, you go with Brady.

 

[PATS16N0]

Joe Montana* never played against anything remotely close to the Legion of Boom or the Greatest Show on Turf. He played middle of the pack defenses like the 16th ranked Bengals. The 2007 and 2011 Giants would have ate him for breakfast, and the 2014 Seahawks would have made him cry.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Of course he has. Every player has. I think we're just trying to knock JM off the insanely huge pedestal he's been placed on.

I would agree. Posterity has been kind to Joe. Lets home it's just as good to TB. I think it will.

 

[FourierSeries]

Joe Montana* never played against anything remotely close to the Legion of Boom or the Greatest Show on Turf. He played middle of the pack defenses like the rank 16 Bengals. The 2007 and 2011 Giants would of ate him for breakfast, and the 2014 Seahawks would of made him cry.

To be fair, the Giants had a great D in 85 and 86. Montana looked silly against them.

 

[PATS16N0]

I would agree. Posterity has been kind to Joe. Lets home it's just as good to TB. I think it will.

There wasn't a trollish internet culture of supreme butthurt and jealousy during Montana's reign.

 

[hwc]

My perspective:

The careers of Rice, Montana, and Walsh are tainted because they are cheaters. Who knows if they would have even won a game if they had played by the rules.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Just going by the numbers, Montana's been under 40 (QB rating) twice, while 49.1 is Brady's lowest, and that was against the Ravens, after the Welker ACL injury, in the 2009 playoffs.

That game I don't knock Brady on that one too much. He played bad but no WW and throwing vs that BAL D with a flawed, dysfunctional roster was doomed from the start.

On the other hand, while Montana's had the lower rated games, he's also had more of the very highly rated games. Montana had 12 of 23 games with QB ratings over 100, while Brady's had 10 of 29 games with such lofty ratings.

If you want a higher overall playoff rating, and more excellent games, you go with Montana. If you want a lower overall rating, but a more even performance and a (currently) higher winning percentage, you go with Brady.

I would agree.

Just looked at JM's playoff run in 1989....142.5, 125.3 and 147.6...sheesh.

Funny- TBs QB rating for the Snow Bowl was 70.4. IMO that was one of his greatest games.

 

[Show416]

There are alot of problems with this 4-0 vs 4-2 argument

1) Both Brady's losses came down to a helmet catch and that amazing Manningham catch after Brady led his team to take the lead with 2 minutes left. Giants didnt leave much time for the Pats to do anything. Essentially, he's being penalized for being clutch. It wasn't Toms fault they lost. Unlike, Manning where he threw a pick 6 to hand the game to the Saints or Kaepernick overthrowing Crabtree.

2) Montana is considered greater because he went to less superbowls? Why? Because he was perfect in them? Then by that same logic, Aikman, Brees, Rodgers, Eli, etc etc are all better than Brady.

3) it's not just about superbowls. Look at the conference championship games, division titles, etc. The guy has played in 13 seasons not counting 2000 and 2008 and has been to 9 title games. He's the greatest winner in sports history in a team sport that's the hardest to win.
He's lead two entirely different teams to superbowl wins and 3 entirely different teams to 3 separate superbowls 2001, 2007, 2014. His offense has changed since he's played and he's adapted and won regardless. They went from heavy run centric, to the Moss era, to the 2 TE era, to the era they're in now.

4) I cannot name a single HOF or future HOF other than 2 years of Seau, maybe Moss, Gronk and Revis that he's played with. Look how many HOFers were on those Niners teams then look at how many potential borderline HOF or HOF candidates there are. Who did Brady have? Nothing, also Montana played in a simple WC offense. Brady plays in the most complex offense known to man apparently.

 

[RobertWeathers]

There wasn't an trollish internet culture of supreme butthurt and jealousy during Montana's reign.

Very accurate.

 

[RobertWeathers]

To be fair, the Giants had a great D in 85 and 86. Montana looked silly against them.

...and the 1990 NFCCG was also a tough matchup for Joe. Pass rush and man to man coverage was the book on Joe.

Back then Giants had a DC who did an ok job for Parcells. He later on went to be HC for the Browns for five years. Got fired after having only one winning season. He sucked. Classic DC who was a bad HC.

Whatever happened to him?

 

[FourierSeries]

...and the 1990 NFCCG was also a tough matchup for Joe. Pass rush and man to man coverage was the book on Joe.

Back then Giants had a DC who did an ok job for Parcells. He later on went to be HC for the Browns for five years. Got fired after having only one winning season. He sucked. Classic DC who was a bad HC.

Whatever happened to him?

He went on to have some decent success, I suppose. Nothing special.

 

[RobertWeathers]

He went on to have some decent success, I suppose. Nothing special.

...and he burns precious 6th round draft picks on lanky quarterbacks. Dumb.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

1) What other guys said about "It's good to win your conference."

2) This will help explain (3): Salary cap/free agency. Montana was on a team that filled an ecological niche that was supposed to be there. Brady is in a niche that the league is trying to eliminate (that is to say the league is trying to impose parity from above, and New England refuses to cooperate).

3) Win or lose, with Brady, it's been 4 points or fewer. Some may put this in the Montana column; I disagree. His era was one of collecting talent; Brady's is one of building a team.

4) If, like Marino, you get no rings, give it up. If like Bradshaw, Montana, and Brady, in you've got 4, you're in the conversation. Now granted, the Steelers played the most dominant 6 years of football anybody has ever had. Brady's Pats have been more like Montana's 9ers, doing it over a 14-year stretch where, every season, it would be smart to bet on the Pats making it to SB (given the odds you get in a 32-team league... and in many years they were odds-on favorites to win.)

5) Think about it. for 14 years it has never been safe to think the Pats were out of the hunt. Never. Even in 2002 they were a threat, albeit a weaker one than in previous and subsequent years. Even in 2008, Brady-less, they managed to win 11 games and still miss the playoffs. Exactly 1 team in the NFL can say that.

That's without Jerry Rice glued to your hip, Rathman and Craig wreaking havoc in the backfield, and Ronnie Lott causing lasting injuries on the defensive side of the ball (to name a few.) Brady had a few years with the one receiver he didn't make: Randy Moss. But he's won his super bowls with basically un-scary receivers.

So many reasons that Tom Terrrific > Joe Cool. But yanno, if it takes that "one for the thumb thing," I'm good with that

 

[PatsFanInVa]

...and the 1990 NFCCG was also a tough matchup for Joe. Pass rush and man to man coverage was the book on Joe.

Back then Giants had a DC who did an ok job for Parcells. He later on went to be HC for the Browns for five years. Got fired after having only one winning season. He sucked. Classic DC who was a bad HC.

Whatever happened to him?

His HC said "That's why you'll never be a head coach in the NFL." Broke his heart, was never heard from again....

Oh wait.

 

[The Gr8est]

1) What other guys said about "It's good to win your conference."

2) This will help explain (3): Salary cap/free agency. Montana was on a team that filled an ecological niche that was supposed to be there. Brady is in a niche that the league is trying to eliminate (that is to say the league is trying to impose parity from above, and New England refuses to cooperate).

3) Win or lose, with Brady, it's been 4 points or fewer. Some may put this in the Montana column; I disagree. His era was one of collecting talent; Brady's is one of building a team.

4) If, like Marino, you get no rings, give it up. If like Bradshaw, Montana, and Brady, in you've got 4, you're in the conversation. Now granted, the Steelers played the most dominant 6 years of football anybody has ever had. Brady's Pats have been more like Montana's 9ers, doing it over a 14-year stretch where, every season, it would be smart to bet on the Pats making it to SB (given the odds you get in a 32-team league... and in many years they were odds-on favorites to win.)

5) Think about it. for 14 years it has never been safe to think the Pats were out of the hunt. Never. Even in 2002 they were a threat, albeit a weaker one than in previous and subsequent years. Even in 2008, Brady-less, they managed to win 11 games and still miss the playoffs. Exactly 1 team in the NFL can say that.

That's without Jerry Rice glued to your hip, Rathman and Craig wreaking havoc in the backfield, and Ronnie Lott causing lasting injuries on the defensive side of the ball (to name a few.) Brady had a few years with the one receiver he didn't make: Randy Moss. But he's won his super bowls with basically un-scary receivers.

So many reasons that Tom Terrrific > Joe Cool. But yanno, if it takes that "one for the thumb thing," I'm good with that

I see what you did there.