Is Tom Brady the Greatest Ever?

[Jarlaxle]

I think Terry Bradshaw is still the all time greatest.

Brady and Montana have tied him but not exceeded him yet.

I am hoping Matt Ryan will squash Brady once and for all.

Naw Shady Brady doesnt count.He has not won four superbowls at all same way Barry Bonds is not the true all time home run king nor holds the record for the most home runs in a season since the one thing they both have in common is they are frauds that have disgraced both sports.

Remind us when he has 7 like Jimmy Johnson and Chad Knaus in the modern era.

how about when he wins his FIRST superbowl.lol

You really should see a doctor for those hallucinations.

 

[Alex.]

I used to think Joe Montana was the greatest ever, but I'm wondering if Tom Brady is the best.

What do you think?

Quarterback for football player?

For player I would go with Jerry Rice.

For QB- well stats be damned- I will go with Joe Montana.

Perhaps I am biased.

Brady is good no doubt but not the best. Think Bret Farve.

There are 3 greatest quarterbacks of all time with 4 Superbowls each Brady, Montana and Bradshaw. If he wins this one, Brady is number one.

cheaters dont count so if we are talking greatest in the superbowl era,the only question is who is the best quarterback in the modern day era between Bradshaw and Montana? same as how Barry Bonds does not count as having the record for most home runs in a season so the question would be who is the greatest home run hitter Ruth or Maris.

Unlike Brady, Montana was and is a PROVEN CHEATER. Might want to move out of that glass house, kid.

Brady destroyed evidence.


A court of law upheld his suspension for cause.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No, that's a lie.

Also note: he was under no obligation to turn over his phone, and in fact, was more or less obligated NOT to do so. (According to a 30-year veteran labor-law attorney.)

 

[gipper]

Let's see Tom Brady get up.after being sacked by Dick Butkus, under the old rules. Let's see Julian Edelman go across the middle knowing that "Night Train" Lane will be there waiting for him.

Nasty makes up for a lot of physical differences. As does today's set of non-contact rules.

LOL

Today's players would bowl right over Dick Butkus and run circles around Night Train Lane

Not a chance. Those two were freaks of nature.

For their day....yes

Neither works out to the level today's players do. Neither had the size or speed needed in today's game

You really can't compare any athlete in any sport from fifty years ago to those of today

I can't agree. Few linebackers today possess the talent Butkus had. With the advanced training and techniques used today, Butkus would have played 10 more years (as he said).

He had speed and size that matched many LBs today. But few had his desire and love of the game.

I too have romantic views of the athletes I grew up with in the 60s and 70s. They were the heroes of my youth

But baseball players were not as good, football players were not nearly as good, basketball was an entirely different game
In measurable sports like track or swimming...the records of the day have been shattered

Players today are bigger, stronger and faster. They have scientific training and computer analysis to refine their skills. They also have drugs that turn them into supermen. Injuries that would have ended a career 50 years ago, put you out of action for a few months

Not as it applies to Butkus. Generally I would agree though.

You need to look at his stats. He was 6-3 and 245. Certainly big enough by today's standards. Plus he ran the 40 in 4.6. Good enough today.

 

[Papageorgio]

Jim Brown was the greatest all time.

For that era.

All time.

 

[Montrovant]

I used to think Joe Montana was the greatest ever, but I'm wondering if Tom Brady is the best.

What do you think?

Quarterback for football player?

For player I would go with Jerry Rice.

For QB- well stats be damned- I will go with Joe Montana.

Perhaps I am biased.

Brady is good no doubt but not the best. Think Bret Farve.

There are 3 greatest quarterbacks of all time with 4 Superbowls each Brady, Montana and Bradshaw. If he wins this one, Brady is number one.

cheaters dont count so if we are talking greatest in the superbowl era,the only question is who is the best quarterback in the modern day era between Bradshaw and Montana? same as how Barry Bonds does not count as having the record for most home runs in a season so the question would be who is the greatest home run hitter Ruth or Maris.

Unlike Brady, Montana was and is a PROVEN CHEATER. Might want to move out of that glass house, kid.

Wait, what? I'd like to see some elaboration on this.

 

[Montrovant]

Don't people give jim kelly a lot of credit just for making it to 4 superbowls and losing them? OK, now consider if Brady loses that will be 3 times he lost a Superbowl?

So wouldn't you say a QB who made it to 3 superbowls and lost them was pretty damn good? So even if you took away bradys 4 superbowl wins you would admit he's pretty damn good. How many men have been to 3 superbowls? Not many. He's either going to be 4 wins 3 loses or 5 wins 2 loses. Either way that's a lot more winning than anyone else. I'd rather have bradys career than anyone elses

Brady is going to his seventh Superbowl and has been to eleven AFC Championship games and 33 total playoff games

Quite a career

You’re right. He’s not responsible for it but if he had started his career in 1980 instead of 2000, he’d be facing the following:

Defensive backs who could get away with MUCH more in terms of coverage, stick-um, and defensive units that had much more freedom to decapitate the QB. Consider this. In 1980, the total number of passes was 13,705. And there was 627 interceptions.
In 2016, there was nearly 5,000 more pass attempts made by NFL quarterbacks but over 200 fewer interceptions.
Some of this increase in passing is due to expansion and new/replacement teams in Jacksonville, Carolina, Houston and Cleveland but it would stand to reason that the dilution of QBs (it being a far more complex position) would lead to more interceptions, not fewer. Also, it would stand to reason that the field being the same size, the athletes being bagger, stronger, and faster would mean more interceptions etc…

Year PA INT
2016 18298 415
2006 16389 520
1996 15966 542
1986 14469 581
1980 13705 627

Put another way, In 1980, when Joe Montana started making his name…there were 28 teams. The Raiders had 35 interceptions as a team. The Saints had the fewest with 12. In the pass happy 2016 season with about 5,000 more passes, the KC Chiefs lead the league with 18 INTs…6 teams had 10 or fewer grabs.

Clearly, the league favors passers more now than ever before; or at least in recent history.

Brady has been assisted by the expansion more than most as well. Three of the new franchises that found their way into the league are AFC teams, Houston, Cleveland and Jacksonville.

Houston is a -28 on 106 wins and 134 losses
Cleveland (who has NEVER won more than 10 games since reinstatement) is apparently -200 with 88 wins and 200 losses
Jacksonville are a -42: 155-197-0

You think Brady/NE has done well against these guys? You’re right 7 and 0 against the Jags, 6 and 1 against the Texans and 7 and 2 against the Browns (since 1999). Of course, expansion has a tendency to lower the barriers for entry. One could argue that he, a 6th round choice, benefitted from it as well. If the Jags, Panthers, and Browns not been there, 18 more players would have been on the board when Brady was selected…who is to say whether the Patriots had one of them ahead. Further…the AFC east competition for the Patriots has not exactly been a model of consistency. Miami has had 8 coaches since 2000, so has Buffalo. The Gents have had 5. Presumably, that is 21 different playbook, 21 different philosophies, lord knows how many different GMs, PPDs, and coordinators.

Again, let me stress, none of this is something that benefits Brady directly. It’s simply the environment he has prospered in and every other QB had essentially the same opportunity. Brady is great but it is hard to find another QB that has benefitted as much from the environment as TB—or one that has mercilessly dispatched his foes.

I try to avoid comparing statistics between era's. The game has changed significantly

I don't see any benefit from expansion. You still have to finish at the top of the heap....which Brady has done repeatedly
Montana had to beat 27 other teams, Brady had to beat 31 other teams (Vince Lombardi's Packers only had to beat 13 other teams)

So if you can't really compare statistics you have to look at:
Did they win championships?
Did they come up big in the clutch?

Both Brady and Montana did both. I give Brady a slight edge now, and hands down if he beats the Falcons

Brady and Montana have the same number of Super Bowl wins. Montana never lost a SB. I'm not sure how, by your stated metric, that would put Brady ahead. Montana would seem to be more "clutch" based on winning percentage in the big game and stats (no INT in his 4 SBs).

Either one of them are perfectly valid to argue as the best of the SB era.

Montana has four conference championships and four Super Bowl rings.
Brady has SEVEN conference championships and also four Super Bowl rings.

Thus, Montana lost before even managing to get to the Super Bowl.

Yep.

And if conference championships were what we were talking about, Brady clearly has the superior record.

 

[rightwinger]

LOL

Today's players would bowl right over Dick Butkus and run circles around Night Train Lane

Not a chance. Those two were freaks of nature.

For their day....yes

Neither works out to the level today's players do. Neither had the size or speed needed in today's game

You really can't compare any athlete in any sport from fifty years ago to those of today

I can't agree. Few linebackers today possess the talent Butkus had. With the advanced training and techniques used today, Butkus would have played 10 more years (as he said).

He had speed and size that matched many LBs today. But few had his desire and love of the game.

I too have romantic views of the athletes I grew up with in the 60s and 70s. They were the heroes of my youth

But baseball players were not as good, football players were not nearly as good, basketball was an entirely different game
In measurable sports like track or swimming...the records of the day have been shattered

Players today are bigger, stronger and faster. They have scientific training and computer analysis to refine their skills. They also have drugs that turn them into supermen. Injuries that would have ended a career 50 years ago, put you out of action for a few months

Not as it applies to Butkus. Generally I would agree though.

You need to look at his stats. He was 6-3 and 245. Certainly big enough by today's standards. Plus he ran the 40 in 4.6. Good enough today.

I look at him like a Brian Urlacher only a little smaller

 

[rightwinger]

Brady is going to his seventh Superbowl and has been to eleven AFC Championship games and 33 total playoff games

Quite a career

You’re right. He’s not responsible for it but if he had started his career in 1980 instead of 2000, he’d be facing the following:

Defensive backs who could get away with MUCH more in terms of coverage, stick-um, and defensive units that had much more freedom to decapitate the QB. Consider this. In 1980, the total number of passes was 13,705. And there was 627 interceptions.
In 2016, there was nearly 5,000 more pass attempts made by NFL quarterbacks but over 200 fewer interceptions.
Some of this increase in passing is due to expansion and new/replacement teams in Jacksonville, Carolina, Houston and Cleveland but it would stand to reason that the dilution of QBs (it being a far more complex position) would lead to more interceptions, not fewer. Also, it would stand to reason that the field being the same size, the athletes being bagger, stronger, and faster would mean more interceptions etc…

Year PA INT
2016 18298 415
2006 16389 520
1996 15966 542
1986 14469 581
1980 13705 627

Put another way, In 1980, when Joe Montana started making his name…there were 28 teams. The Raiders had 35 interceptions as a team. The Saints had the fewest with 12. In the pass happy 2016 season with about 5,000 more passes, the KC Chiefs lead the league with 18 INTs…6 teams had 10 or fewer grabs.

Clearly, the league favors passers more now than ever before; or at least in recent history.

Brady has been assisted by the expansion more than most as well. Three of the new franchises that found their way into the league are AFC teams, Houston, Cleveland and Jacksonville.

Houston is a -28 on 106 wins and 134 losses
Cleveland (who has NEVER won more than 10 games since reinstatement) is apparently -200 with 88 wins and 200 losses
Jacksonville are a -42: 155-197-0

You think Brady/NE has done well against these guys? You’re right 7 and 0 against the Jags, 6 and 1 against the Texans and 7 and 2 against the Browns (since 1999). Of course, expansion has a tendency to lower the barriers for entry. One could argue that he, a 6th round choice, benefitted from it as well. If the Jags, Panthers, and Browns not been there, 18 more players would have been on the board when Brady was selected…who is to say whether the Patriots had one of them ahead. Further…the AFC east competition for the Patriots has not exactly been a model of consistency. Miami has had 8 coaches since 2000, so has Buffalo. The Gents have had 5. Presumably, that is 21 different playbook, 21 different philosophies, lord knows how many different GMs, PPDs, and coordinators.

Again, let me stress, none of this is something that benefits Brady directly. It’s simply the environment he has prospered in and every other QB had essentially the same opportunity. Brady is great but it is hard to find another QB that has benefitted as much from the environment as TB—or one that has mercilessly dispatched his foes.

I try to avoid comparing statistics between era's. The game has changed significantly

I don't see any benefit from expansion. You still have to finish at the top of the heap....which Brady has done repeatedly
Montana had to beat 27 other teams, Brady had to beat 31 other teams (Vince Lombardi's Packers only had to beat 13 other teams)

So if you can't really compare statistics you have to look at:
Did they win championships?
Did they come up big in the clutch?

Both Brady and Montana did both. I give Brady a slight edge now, and hands down if he beats the Falcons

Brady and Montana have the same number of Super Bowl wins. Montana never lost a SB. I'm not sure how, by your stated metric, that would put Brady ahead. Montana would seem to be more "clutch" based on winning percentage in the big game and stats (no INT in his 4 SBs).

Either one of them are perfectly valid to argue as the best of the SB era.

Montana has four conference championships and four Super Bowl rings.
Brady has SEVEN conference championships and also four Super Bowl rings.

Thus, Montana lost before even managing to get to the Super Bowl.

Yep.

And if conference championships were what we were talking about, Brady clearly has the superior record.

We are talking about the GOAT and conference championships come into play

 

[Montrovant]

Jim Brown was the greatest all time.

I look at Jim Brown and he was big, fast and strong. A man among boys
But you have to look at the size, strength and speed of those who were trying to tackle him.
Would he dominate today? He would probably be one of the better backs in the league. But he would not get away with a lot of what he got away with in the 50s

I hate those "would he dominate today?" questions. Brown doesn't play today. He had to play against the available competition and within the existing rules.

You can argue that today's players are superior physically and that Brown would not have nearly the level of success he had then against current athletes. However, you might also argue that if today's athletes had to play with the same rules Brown did, that they would not have the same success they do. The same might be argued about the conditions Brown played in, with things like small salaries, lesser medical treatment, less recognition or celebrity, poorer quality stadiums, even racial difficulties making for a far different dynamic.

Brown may not be the most athletic running back in NFL history, but he was certainly one of the most dominant, probably the most dominant, ever to play. That might not make him the GOAT, but it is a strong argument in his favor.

 

[Papageorgio]

I used to think Joe Montana was the greatest ever, but I'm wondering if Tom Brady is the best.

What do you think?

Quarterback for football player?

For player I would go with Jerry Rice.

For QB- well stats be damned- I will go with Joe Montana.

Perhaps I am biased.

Brady is good no doubt but not the best. Think Bret Farve.

There are 3 greatest quarterbacks of all time with 4 Superbowls each Brady, Montana and Bradshaw. If he wins this one, Brady is number one.

cheaters dont count so if we are talking greatest in the superbowl era,the only question is who is the best quarterback in the modern day era between Bradshaw and Montana? same as how Barry Bonds does not count as having the record for most home runs in a season so the question would be who is the greatest home run hitter Ruth or Maris.

Unlike Brady, Montana was and is a PROVEN CHEATER. Might want to move out of that glass house, kid.

Wait, what? I'd like to see some elaboration on this.

Stickum and silicon were both used by the 9ers and Montana had knowledge. Also the 9ers would fake headset issues to allow Montana to run his set plays. No big deal, just like Brady wasn't a big deal. As Montana said, if you ain't cheating you ain't trying.

 

[Montrovant]

You’re right. He’s not responsible for it but if he had started his career in 1980 instead of 2000, he’d be facing the following:

Defensive backs who could get away with MUCH more in terms of coverage, stick-um, and defensive units that had much more freedom to decapitate the QB. Consider this. In 1980, the total number of passes was 13,705. And there was 627 interceptions.
In 2016, there was nearly 5,000 more pass attempts made by NFL quarterbacks but over 200 fewer interceptions.
Some of this increase in passing is due to expansion and new/replacement teams in Jacksonville, Carolina, Houston and Cleveland but it would stand to reason that the dilution of QBs (it being a far more complex position) would lead to more interceptions, not fewer. Also, it would stand to reason that the field being the same size, the athletes being bagger, stronger, and faster would mean more interceptions etc…

Year PA INT
2016 18298 415
2006 16389 520
1996 15966 542
1986 14469 581
1980 13705 627

Put another way, In 1980, when Joe Montana started making his name…there were 28 teams. The Raiders had 35 interceptions as a team. The Saints had the fewest with 12. In the pass happy 2016 season with about 5,000 more passes, the KC Chiefs lead the league with 18 INTs…6 teams had 10 or fewer grabs.

Clearly, the league favors passers more now than ever before; or at least in recent history.

Brady has been assisted by the expansion more than most as well. Three of the new franchises that found their way into the league are AFC teams, Houston, Cleveland and Jacksonville.

Houston is a -28 on 106 wins and 134 losses
Cleveland (who has NEVER won more than 10 games since reinstatement) is apparently -200 with 88 wins and 200 losses
Jacksonville are a -42: 155-197-0

You think Brady/NE has done well against these guys? You’re right 7 and 0 against the Jags, 6 and 1 against the Texans and 7 and 2 against the Browns (since 1999). Of course, expansion has a tendency to lower the barriers for entry. One could argue that he, a 6th round choice, benefitted from it as well. If the Jags, Panthers, and Browns not been there, 18 more players would have been on the board when Brady was selected…who is to say whether the Patriots had one of them ahead. Further…the AFC east competition for the Patriots has not exactly been a model of consistency. Miami has had 8 coaches since 2000, so has Buffalo. The Gents have had 5. Presumably, that is 21 different playbook, 21 different philosophies, lord knows how many different GMs, PPDs, and coordinators.

Again, let me stress, none of this is something that benefits Brady directly. It’s simply the environment he has prospered in and every other QB had essentially the same opportunity. Brady is great but it is hard to find another QB that has benefitted as much from the environment as TB—or one that has mercilessly dispatched his foes.

I try to avoid comparing statistics between era's. The game has changed significantly

I don't see any benefit from expansion. You still have to finish at the top of the heap....which Brady has done repeatedly
Montana had to beat 27 other teams, Brady had to beat 31 other teams (Vince Lombardi's Packers only had to beat 13 other teams)

So if you can't really compare statistics you have to look at:
Did they win championships?
Did they come up big in the clutch?

Both Brady and Montana did both. I give Brady a slight edge now, and hands down if he beats the Falcons

Brady and Montana have the same number of Super Bowl wins. Montana never lost a SB. I'm not sure how, by your stated metric, that would put Brady ahead. Montana would seem to be more "clutch" based on winning percentage in the big game and stats (no INT in his 4 SBs).

Either one of them are perfectly valid to argue as the best of the SB era.

Montana has four conference championships and four Super Bowl rings.
Brady has SEVEN conference championships and also four Super Bowl rings.

Thus, Montana lost before even managing to get to the Super Bowl.

Yep.

And if conference championships were what we were talking about, Brady clearly has the superior record.

We are talking about the GOAT and conference championships come into play

You are adding new criteria. Earlier you said it came down to Super Bowl wins and being clutch. It seems you need to define clutch, because how the quarterback performs in the biggest game possible is clearly not the definition.

 

[Montrovant]

I used to think Joe Montana was the greatest ever, but I'm wondering if Tom Brady is the best.

What do you think?

Quarterback for football player?

For player I would go with Jerry Rice.

For QB- well stats be damned- I will go with Joe Montana.

Perhaps I am biased.

Brady is good no doubt but not the best. Think Bret Farve.

There are 3 greatest quarterbacks of all time with 4 Superbowls each Brady, Montana and Bradshaw. If he wins this one, Brady is number one.

cheaters dont count so if we are talking greatest in the superbowl era,the only question is who is the best quarterback in the modern day era between Bradshaw and Montana? same as how Barry Bonds does not count as having the record for most home runs in a season so the question would be who is the greatest home run hitter Ruth or Maris.

Unlike Brady, Montana was and is a PROVEN CHEATER. Might want to move out of that glass house, kid.

Wait, what? I'd like to see some elaboration on this.

Stickum and silicon were both used by the 9ers and Montana had knowledge. Also the 9ers would fake headset issues to allow Montana to run his set plays. No big deal, just like Brady wasn't a big deal. As Montana said, if you ain't cheating you ain't trying.

I'm just wondering how Montana is a "proven cheater" while Brady is not.

 

[Alex.]

Jim Brown was the greatest all time.

For that era.

All time.

Nah, the game has changed and evolved since its inception so have the players and the skills required.

 

[Papageorgio]

Quarterback for football player?

For player I would go with Jerry Rice.

For QB- well stats be damned- I will go with Joe Montana.

Perhaps I am biased.

Brady is good no doubt but not the best. Think Bret Farve.

There are 3 greatest quarterbacks of all time with 4 Superbowls each Brady, Montana and Bradshaw. If he wins this one, Brady is number one.

cheaters dont count so if we are talking greatest in the superbowl era,the only question is who is the best quarterback in the modern day era between Bradshaw and Montana? same as how Barry Bonds does not count as having the record for most home runs in a season so the question would be who is the greatest home run hitter Ruth or Maris.

Unlike Brady, Montana was and is a PROVEN CHEATER. Might want to move out of that glass house, kid.

Wait, what? I'd like to see some elaboration on this.

Stickum and silicon were both used by the 9ers and Montana had knowledge. Also the 9ers would fake headset issues to allow Montana to run his set plays. No big deal, just like Brady wasn't a big deal. As Montana said, if you ain't cheating you ain't trying.

I'm just wondering how Montana is a "proven cheater" while Brady is not.

They all cheat to one degree or another. I find the whole issue pretty silly. Brady and Montana are two great QBs.

 

[Alex.]

You’re right. He’s not responsible for it but if he had started his career in 1980 instead of 2000, he’d be facing the following:

Defensive backs who could get away with MUCH more in terms of coverage, stick-um, and defensive units that had much more freedom to decapitate the QB. Consider this. In 1980, the total number of passes was 13,705. And there was 627 interceptions.
In 2016, there was nearly 5,000 more pass attempts made by NFL quarterbacks but over 200 fewer interceptions.
Some of this increase in passing is due to expansion and new/replacement teams in Jacksonville, Carolina, Houston and Cleveland but it would stand to reason that the dilution of QBs (it being a far more complex position) would lead to more interceptions, not fewer. Also, it would stand to reason that the field being the same size, the athletes being bagger, stronger, and faster would mean more interceptions etc…

Year PA INT
2016 18298 415
2006 16389 520
1996 15966 542
1986 14469 581
1980 13705 627

Put another way, In 1980, when Joe Montana started making his name…there were 28 teams. The Raiders had 35 interceptions as a team. The Saints had the fewest with 12. In the pass happy 2016 season with about 5,000 more passes, the KC Chiefs lead the league with 18 INTs…6 teams had 10 or fewer grabs.

Clearly, the league favors passers more now than ever before; or at least in recent history.

Brady has been assisted by the expansion more than most as well. Three of the new franchises that found their way into the league are AFC teams, Houston, Cleveland and Jacksonville.

Houston is a -28 on 106 wins and 134 losses
Cleveland (who has NEVER won more than 10 games since reinstatement) is apparently -200 with 88 wins and 200 losses
Jacksonville are a -42: 155-197-0

You think Brady/NE has done well against these guys? You’re right 7 and 0 against the Jags, 6 and 1 against the Texans and 7 and 2 against the Browns (since 1999). Of course, expansion has a tendency to lower the barriers for entry. One could argue that he, a 6th round choice, benefitted from it as well. If the Jags, Panthers, and Browns not been there, 18 more players would have been on the board when Brady was selected…who is to say whether the Patriots had one of them ahead. Further…the AFC east competition for the Patriots has not exactly been a model of consistency. Miami has had 8 coaches since 2000, so has Buffalo. The Gents have had 5. Presumably, that is 21 different playbook, 21 different philosophies, lord knows how many different GMs, PPDs, and coordinators.

Again, let me stress, none of this is something that benefits Brady directly. It’s simply the environment he has prospered in and every other QB had essentially the same opportunity. Brady is great but it is hard to find another QB that has benefitted as much from the environment as TB—or one that has mercilessly dispatched his foes.

I try to avoid comparing statistics between era's. The game has changed significantly

I don't see any benefit from expansion. You still have to finish at the top of the heap....which Brady has done repeatedly
Montana had to beat 27 other teams, Brady had to beat 31 other teams (Vince Lombardi's Packers only had to beat 13 other teams)

So if you can't really compare statistics you have to look at:
Did they win championships?
Did they come up big in the clutch?

Both Brady and Montana did both. I give Brady a slight edge now, and hands down if he beats the Falcons

Brady and Montana have the same number of Super Bowl wins. Montana never lost a SB. I'm not sure how, by your stated metric, that would put Brady ahead. Montana would seem to be more "clutch" based on winning percentage in the big game and stats (no INT in his 4 SBs).

Either one of them are perfectly valid to argue as the best of the SB era.

Montana has four conference championships and four Super Bowl rings.
Brady has SEVEN conference championships and also four Super Bowl rings.

Thus, Montana lost before even managing to get to the Super Bowl.

Yep.

And if conference championships were what we were talking about, Brady clearly has the superior record.

We are talking about the GOAT and conference championships come into play

One cannot take Brady's accomplishments where some consider him the "greatest" without accounting for those instances that have gained him the wins such as the serial cheating and reasons for his suspensions. Unless, of course, that person is incapable of being honest.

 

[Alex.]

cheaters dont count so if we are talking greatest in the superbowl era,the only question is who is the best quarterback in the modern day era between Bradshaw and Montana? same as how Barry Bonds does not count as having the record for most home runs in a season so the question would be who is the greatest home run hitter Ruth or Maris.

Unlike Brady, Montana was and is a PROVEN CHEATER. Might want to move out of that glass house, kid.

Wait, what? I'd like to see some elaboration on this.

Stickum and silicon were both used by the 9ers and Montana had knowledge. Also the 9ers would fake headset issues to allow Montana to run his set plays. No big deal, just like Brady wasn't a big deal. As Montana said, if you ain't cheating you ain't trying.

I'm just wondering how Montana is a "proven cheater" while Brady is not.

They all cheat to one degree or another. I find the whole issue pretty silly. Brady and Montana are two great QBs.

Obviously you adhere to a lower standard of practice where dishonesty is the norm. Not all consider that to be acceptable.

 

[rightwinger]

I try to avoid comparing statistics between era's. The game has changed significantly

I don't see any benefit from expansion. You still have to finish at the top of the heap....which Brady has done repeatedly
Montana had to beat 27 other teams, Brady had to beat 31 other teams (Vince Lombardi's Packers only had to beat 13 other teams)

So if you can't really compare statistics you have to look at:
Did they win championships?
Did they come up big in the clutch?

Both Brady and Montana did both. I give Brady a slight edge now, and hands down if he beats the Falcons

Brady and Montana have the same number of Super Bowl wins. Montana never lost a SB. I'm not sure how, by your stated metric, that would put Brady ahead. Montana would seem to be more "clutch" based on winning percentage in the big game and stats (no INT in his 4 SBs).

Either one of them are perfectly valid to argue as the best of the SB era.

Montana has four conference championships and four Super Bowl rings.
Brady has SEVEN conference championships and also four Super Bowl rings.

Thus, Montana lost before even managing to get to the Super Bowl.

Yep.

And if conference championships were what we were talking about, Brady clearly has the superior record.

We are talking about the GOAT and conference championships come into play

You are adding new criteria. Earlier you said it came down to Super Bowl wins and being clutch. It seems you need to define clutch, because how the quarterback performs in the biggest game possible is clearly not the definition.

Brady has been clutch in all six of his superbowls

If two players each have four wins, next step is to look at appearances as a tiebreaker

 

[rightwinger]

I try to avoid comparing statistics between era's. The game has changed significantly

I don't see any benefit from expansion. You still have to finish at the top of the heap....which Brady has done repeatedly
Montana had to beat 27 other teams, Brady had to beat 31 other teams (Vince Lombardi's Packers only had to beat 13 other teams)

So if you can't really compare statistics you have to look at:
Did they win championships?
Did they come up big in the clutch?

Both Brady and Montana did both. I give Brady a slight edge now, and hands down if he beats the Falcons

Brady and Montana have the same number of Super Bowl wins. Montana never lost a SB. I'm not sure how, by your stated metric, that would put Brady ahead. Montana would seem to be more "clutch" based on winning percentage in the big game and stats (no INT in his 4 SBs).

Either one of them are perfectly valid to argue as the best of the SB era.

Montana has four conference championships and four Super Bowl rings.
Brady has SEVEN conference championships and also four Super Bowl rings.

Thus, Montana lost before even managing to get to the Super Bowl.

Yep.

And if conference championships were what we were talking about, Brady clearly has the superior record.

We are talking about the GOAT and conference championships come into play

One cannot take Brady's accomplishments where some consider him the "greatest" without accounting for those instances that have gained him the wins such as the serial cheating and reasons for his suspensions. Unless, of course, that person is incapable of being honest.

Sorry, I don't get a hardon for deflated footballs

 

[Papageorgio]

Unlike Brady, Montana was and is a PROVEN CHEATER. Might want to move out of that glass house, kid.

Wait, what? I'd like to see some elaboration on this.

Stickum and silicon were both used by the 9ers and Montana had knowledge. Also the 9ers would fake headset issues to allow Montana to run his set plays. No big deal, just like Brady wasn't a big deal. As Montana said, if you ain't cheating you ain't trying.

I'm just wondering how Montana is a "proven cheater" while Brady is not.

They all cheat to one degree or another. I find the whole issue pretty silly. Brady and Montana are two great QBs.

Obviously you adhere to a lower standard of practice where dishonesty is the norm. Not all consider that to be acceptable.

Obviously you are mistaken, why is one player cheating different than another player cheating?