Jump to content

The dumb argument regarding Brady vs Montana


BroncoSojia

Recommended Posts

The only advantage Brady has over numerous others is having played his entire career with little competition in the internet era.

Aikman, Kelly, Favre and Young shared the '90's. Marino, Elway and Montana the '80's. Staubach, Griese, Tarkenton and Bradshaw the '70's.

Even 1990s highlights look vintage by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Buddyboy said:

The only advantage Brady has over numerous others is having played his entire career with little competition in the internet era.

Aikman, Kelly, Favre and Young shared the '90's. Marino, Elway and Montana the '80's. Staubach, Griese, Tarkenton and Bradshaw the '70's.

Even 1990s highlights look vintage by now.

Yeah.  Brady, Manning and Rodgers aren't anything to be concerned with. 9_9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2018 at 5:09 PM, lod01 said:

Imagine the 49ers in this decade. Smoking Belicheck/Brady yearly. They were a superior team (to any Pats team) in a decade where you could punish a QB with brutal hits and not get flagged. They faced incredible competition vs the Giants , Redskins and for one year the Bears a (with one of the greatest Ds in history). The NFL championship back then WAS the SB. The SB was a simply a sacrifice of an AFC team to the NFC champion.

You take the 80's/early 90s 49ers and put them in the AFC East over the last 2 decades, with no punishing the QB and Montana has more than 5 SBs.

In the early to mid 2000's the AFC was a complete bloodbath.

In 2004 the Patriots went 14-2 and still had to go on the road in the playoffs - let that sink in for a second.

Pats, Steelers, Colts, Chargers, Ravens were all really good teams.

Even teams like Broncos and Titans had their moments of being very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2018 at 4:36 PM, LaserFocus said:

The Patriots have had a cakewalk in the AFC East for years, and haven't had to deal with a consistently strong team like Baltimore in their own division. It's not their fault, just a reality of the situation.  Losing three Super Bowls as a favorite isn't something to help in the GOAT context. And Montana didn't blow the biggest game of his career, like Brady did in SB42. The NFC in the 80s was also more difficult than the AFC during Brady's era. Let's also not forget Brady walked into a much better situation in NE than Joe did in SF, and the Chiefs haven't returned to the AFC TG since Montana's time there. In the GOAT context, we cannot reward losing three Super Bowls as favorites. The latest loss wasn't all Bardy's fault, but his accuracy was subpar, and make a huge mistake late.

- As I said earlier, the AFC was a very tough conference in the 2000's.

- Brady hardly walked into a good situation, the Patriots had been on a downward trend ever since Parcells era and they were in cap hell. The Patriots went 5-11 in Brady's rookie season, and they were looking to do the same thing when he took over in 2001. (They started out 0-2) The 2001 Patriots are more of a testament of Brady/Belichicks ability to put together a SB Championship out of Duct-Tape more than anything else. The Patriots actual rebuild wasn't complete until 2003, they just happened to win a SB WHILE rebuilding as crazy as that is to say. It's not like this is Russell Wilson who was drafted onto a stacked roster.

- Montana probably doesn't even win 4 SB's if the rules were the same back then. The 49ers did not have to worry about the salary cap or free agency back then, it was much easier for a franchise to be dominant over a long period of time than it is now. The Patriots have put together the greatest dynasty in NFL history in spite of all that. I don't think this is an argument against Montana however, SB's are won by teams.

 

Ultimately making the SB > Not making the SB.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...