U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-02-2018, 08:10 AM
 
Location: Wouldn't you like to know?
9,114 posts, read 15,674,566 times
Reputation: 3695

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
Stephen A. Smith said that Montana's 4-0 on Super Bowls means he is better than Brady as a QB, because Brady is 5-2 (pending at least 1 more Super Bowl) and that the Super Bowl is the biggest stage so it is that important.

I think this is poor logic, first of all it is a team game, and a team accomplishment we are talking about.

Moreover, using Smith's logic, it is better that Montana missed the playoffs more often than Brady. It is better that Montana bowed out of the playoffs early more often than Brady.

Brady is penalized for making it to the playoffs more consistently and navigating his team all the way to the final game.

Smith for calling a QB the greatest would rather have a QB lose in the first round of the playoffs, than navigate his team to the Super Bowl and then lose it. No credit for getting there.

Where do you draw a line on this logic? Is a 2-0 in Super Bowls, but losing record in the playoffs QB better than Brady? Is Trent Dilfer better than Brady, because he is unblemished on the biggest stage?

Record in the playoffs:
Brady 27-9
Montana 16-7

Times missed the playoffs:
Brady 1
Montana 3

Seasons with losing records:
Brady 0
Montana 3
I thought Terrell Owens made this argment, not Stephen A.? When TO was on radio row yesterday w/Mad Dog Radio, he gave the exact same reasoning above....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2018, 08:18 AM
 
929 posts, read 296,796 times
Reputation: 799
The lack of critical thinking by a majority of sports media never ceases to astound me. You would think with every play and coaching decision far more scrutinized by way more media sources than even say, 20 years ago, we would have more legitimate insight. I don't know who the best QB is. No one truly does. So many moving parts, advantages and disadvantages when it comes to rules, surrounding talent, coaching staffs, home field conditions, and on and on...

We can surmise as individuals who we all believe is best utilizing logical criteria that will still be more subjective in nature than objective. If Roger Craig doesn't inexplicably muff a handoff late in the 1990 NFC title game and Montana is healthy enough to play in the next week's Super Bowl, while Seattle's coaching staff doesn't make the NFL's most catastrophically stupid decision to not hand the ball to Marshawn Lynch, does that suddenly change anything just because Montana would have more rings right now than Brady?

C'mon. I don't know why the naive media and gullible public fall for this crap, particularly NFL quarterbacks, and you are one of 11 on the field and for roughly only 50% of the snaps. At least in the NBA, which is the other most prominent but exaggerated media talking point when equating rings to greatness, you are one of just five and playing both ends of the court.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2018, 08:37 AM
 
1,579 posts, read 983,426 times
Reputation: 2965
My opinion, Brady is the better QB, with the better stats. And at this point, is just gaining separation. This is a comparison of regular season stats (Brady vs Montana). But I do think Montana's stats have to be contextualized.. The league didn't pass as much back in the 8os. Rules were more fair to pass defenders, etc.

Brady 66K + total pass yards, 488 TDs 160 INTs
Montana 40K+ total passing yards, 273 TDs, 139 INTs

Brady has the statistical advantage (w/numbers still growing). Both are/were great in the clutch. Both have the championship hardware. But Brady has done more, for longer. I do value championship rings in my evaluation. But if that's the primary measuring stick.. Otto Graham has to be moved up in to a consensus all-time top 5, no ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2018, 08:43 AM
 
Location: Wouldn't you like to know?
9,114 posts, read 15,674,566 times
Reputation: 3695
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonnyCrockett View Post
The lack of critical thinking by a majority of sports media never ceases to astound me. You would think with every play and coaching decision far more scrutinized by way more media sources than even say, 20 years ago, we would have more legitimate insight. I don't know who the best QB is. No one truly does. So many moving parts, advantages and disadvantages when it comes to rules, surrounding talent, coaching staffs, home field conditions, and on and on...

We can surmise as individuals who we all believe is best utilizing logical criteria that will still be more subjective in nature than objective. If Roger Craig doesn't inexplicably muff a handoff late in the 1990 NFC title game and Montana is healthy enough to play in the next week's Super Bowl, while Seattle's coaching staff doesn't make the NFL's most catastrophically stupid decision to not hand the ball to Marshawn Lynch, does that suddenly change anything just because Montana would have more rings right now than Brady?

C'mon. I don't know why the naive media and gullible public fall for this crap, particularly NFL quarterbacks, and you are one of 11 on the field and for roughly only 50% of the snaps. At least in the NBA, which is the other most prominent but exaggerated media talking point when equating rings to greatness, you are one of just five and playing both ends of the court.
You make some great points...it is very difficult to compare immortals (ie Montana/Brady) from different generations so to speak...and very true Montana couldve been in a couple more!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2018, 08:53 AM
 
3,803 posts, read 2,016,600 times
Reputation: 3265
Eli Manning is the best because he beat so-called greatest not once but twice. He is the person Brady would be wetting his tights come Superbowl time. He fears him so much he even asked his wife to ask people to pray for him to win in their second meeting.


And those 2 passes -- one to Tyree the other to Manningham -- forever will be nightmares Brady will take to his grave.

Manning to Tyree


Manning to Manningham
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2018, 09:13 AM
 
929 posts, read 296,796 times
Reputation: 799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babe_Ruth View Post
My opinion, Brady is the better QB, with the better stats. And at this point, is just gaining separation. This is a comparison of regular season stats (Brady vs Montana). But I do think Montana's stats have to be contextualized.. The league didn't pass as much back in the 8os. Rules were more fair to pass defenders, etc.

Brady 66K + total pass yards, 488 TDs 160 INTs
Montana 40K+ total passing yards, 273 TDs, 139 INTs

Brady has the statistical advantage (w/numbers still growing). Both are/were great in the clutch. Both have the championship hardware. But Brady has done more, for longer. I do value championship rings in my evaluation. But if that's the primary measuring stick.. Otto Graham has to be moved up in to a consensus all-time top 5, no ?
Yes, "contextualized" is the key word you nailed. I think that word still matters even when comparing players of the same exact era. I don't agree however that rules were more fair to defenders in the 80's. You literally couldn't touch a receiver down the field with out being flagged, due to new rules designed to open up the game. Ironic too, because I mentioned the what-ifs. I'll go back to 1983 as well with the Niners. NFC Title game at the Redskins. 21-0 Redskins, early 4th quarter. Montana rallies the troops back to tie the game. But the Redskins kick the game winning fg late thanks to two very dubious pass interference calls, that wouldn't be called in today's game.
Of course on the other hand, Brady benefits from very stringent rules as to what a tackler can do with the quarterback, while not only was Montana a glutton for punishment much more, he literally competed against some of the NFL's greatest ever defenses and teams in NFL history. The Ditka Bears. The Gibbs Redskins. The Parcells Giants. Even the Rams within the division were consistently very good. But Brady I feel too has had very marginal receivers for a bigger chunk of his career. Yeah he had Moss and Welker. Yeah he has Gronkowski now. But I think Brady still gets greater credit on that front. Moral is, its very easy to "contextualize" and defend one or the other as the greatest, and not to mention other QBs as well; and any other NFL position player as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2018, 09:27 AM
 
16,775 posts, read 9,115,884 times
Reputation: 6798
Quote:
Originally Posted by CouponJack View Post
I thought Terrell Owens made this argment, not Stephen A.? When TO was on radio row yesterday w/Mad Dog Radio, he gave the exact same reasoning above....
Stephen A. Smith also made the argument. I can try to find the YouTube clip this weekend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2018, 06:57 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
4,212 posts, read 2,831,702 times
Reputation: 4502
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonnyCrockett View Post
At least in the NBA, which is the other most prominent but exaggerated media talking point when equating rings to greatness, you are one of just five and playing both ends of the court.
You are right on this, which is a point I was gonna touch on. The NBA media and fans do the same thing with the Jordan vs Lebron thing. And I get it, some people will always go for the "original" GOAT (Jordan is Montana in this sense) and refuse to fully acknowledge the greatness of a very worthy challenger....

Jordan went to 6 Finals, won all 6, in 15 years. Lebron is currently in Year 15 and has already been to 8, and though he's 3-5, the contextualization that you mentioned earlier is of tantamount importance---four of Lebron's five losses on the championship round have been to the Spurs (the NBA's Patriots with five championships in the last 20 years), and the Warriors, the most dynastic juggernaut to hit the NBA since Jordan's Bulls. He also has a win against both (1-2 in championships vs both), and there's no way Jordan or any other basketball GOAT thats ever played would have a pristine 6-0 Finals record playing the Popovich/Duncan Spurs and the Warriors, and Lebron's victory over the Warriors two years ago, which essentially was like Brady's SB 52 comeback from down 25, that achievement will probably NEVER be seen again at that stage...

Also, the same analogies and hypotheticals can be attributed to the Jordan/Lebron debate. If Steve Kerr and Bill Paxson and Robert Horry aren't hitting those clutch shots in the 90s Finals, we're not looking at a perfect 6-0 record. If Lebron has Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving healthy in 2015, he's probably looking at 4-4 and 2-1 vs the Warriors, as he statistically dominated the series and willed the Cavaliers to two wins without them...

Sorry I got long winded. For the record I'm only 28 and didnt get to watch Montana or Jordan, but i have gotten to watch Brady and Lebron, and I consider myself extremely fortunate as a spectator to have witnessed their careers. My dad is 53 and was both a Montana and Jordan fan, and he has been giving Lebron and Brady props for years. Both leagues are far differently played from how they were 30 years ago, so I agree with you, there's never a true way to say who was better than who. Both the "original" GOATs, and the new era GOATs, have dominated head and shoulders above their competition for their respective eras. One day, that'll just be good enough to accept...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonnyCrockett View Post
Yes, "contextualized" is the key word you nailed. I think that word still matters even when comparing players of the same exact era. I don't agree however that rules were more fair to defenders in the 80's. You literally couldn't touch a receiver down the field with out being flagged, due to new rules designed to open up the game. Ironic too, because I mentioned the what-ifs. I'll go back to 1983 as well with the Niners. NFC Title game at the Redskins. 21-0 Redskins, early 4th quarter. Montana rallies the troops back to tie the game. But the Redskins kick the game winning fg late thanks to two very dubious pass interference calls, that wouldn't be called in today's game.
Of course on the other hand, Brady benefits from very stringent rules as to what a tackler can do with the quarterback, while not only was Montana a glutton for punishment much more, he literally competed against some of the NFL's greatest ever defenses and teams in NFL history. The Ditka Bears. The Gibbs Redskins. The Parcells Giants. Even the Rams within the division were consistently very good. But Brady I feel too has had very marginal receivers for a bigger chunk of his career. Yeah he had Moss and Welker. Yeah he has Gronkowski now. But I think Brady still gets greater credit on that front. Moral is, its very easy to "contextualize" and defend one or the other as the greatest, and not to mention other QBs as well; and any other NFL position player as well.
Again with excellent points!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2018, 06:00 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
5,628 posts, read 4,224,097 times
Reputation: 4582
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
Stephen A. Smith said that Montana's 4-0 on Super Bowls means he is better than Brady as a QB, because Brady is 5-2 (pending at least 1 more Super Bowl) and that the Super Bowl is the biggest stage so it is that important.

I think this is poor logic, first of all it is a team game, and a team accomplishment we are talking about.

Moreover, using Smith's logic, it is better that Montana missed the playoffs more often than Brady. It is better that Montana bowed out of the playoffs early more often than Brady.

Brady is penalized for making it to the playoffs more consistently and navigating his team all the way to the final game.

Smith for calling a QB the greatest would rather have a QB lose in the first round of the playoffs, than navigate his team to the Super Bowl and then lose it. No credit for getting there.

Where do you draw a line on this logic? Is a 2-0 in Super Bowls, but losing record in the playoffs QB better than Brady? Is Trent Dilfer better than Brady, because he is unblemished on the biggest stage?

Record in the playoffs:
Brady 27-9
Montana 16-7

Times missed the playoffs:
Brady 1
Montana 3

Seasons with losing records:
Brady 0
Montana 3

FWIW, i give the nod to Brady but i do find it odd that you start off by noting that it is a TEAM GAME and then make a valid argument for Brady noting his accomplishments and his record.. as if this was a solo event.

Record in the playoffs:
Brady 27-9
Montana 16-7

Times missed the playoffs:
Brady 1
Montana 3

Seasons with losing records:
Brady 0
Montana 3


Looking at last nights game, Brady had his Best SB performance in 8 tries yet HE LOST.. or better yet, his team LOST.. getting back to your original point, it is a TEAM GAME!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2018, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
4,212 posts, read 2,831,702 times
Reputation: 4502
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65 View Post
FWIW, i give the nod to Brady but i do find it odd that you start off by noting that it is a TEAM GAME and then make a valid argument for Brady noting his accomplishments and his record.. as if this was a solo event.

Record in the playoffs:
Brady 27-9
Montana 16-7

Times missed the playoffs:
Brady 1
Montana 3

Seasons with losing records:
Brady 0
Montana 3


Looking at last nights game, Brady had his Best SB performance in 8 tries yet HE LOST.. or better yet, his team LOST.. getting back to your original point, it is a TEAM GAME!
I definitely wouldn't call that Brady's best game; objectively, Nick Foles outplayed him. He had at least three or four throws that could have been picked because of underthrows or poor ball placement. His situational awareness, a skill he's been amongst the best to ever have, was not particularly great (that run before half, the clock management before half, not being able to feel the pressure and get rid of the ball before the strip sack). Yes, it's a team game, and there is plenty of blame to go around for the loss, but Brady played a better games versus Carolina 14 years ago, he played a better game versus Seattle three years ago....

It was his best statistical Super Bowl. It was far from his best game...

I was on the phone with my dad last night, who gave an interesting thought. He said he'd take Montana over Brady still, but offered that because we've watched Brady lose three times (and basically his first SB win was won by the Pats D), we've seen more of his errors on the big stage. We've seen him play not so great, like last year even though he won. And again my dad, who is 53, his opinion is that seeing those flaws in Brady stick in the minds eye, whereas Montana never played poorly enough to contribute to a 25-point deficit, Montana made his own legendary plays, and he never lost. Our eyes saw less of his flaws, so we may tend to exaggerate Brady's...

He also applied this same logic to the comparable Jordan/Lebron debate, and it's a very interesting, thoughtful take. It doesn't necessarily mean Montana was better, but he looked better without some of the same mistakes...

Last edited by murksiderock; 02-05-2018 at 09:09 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top