Florio made a post over at PFT where he claimed any debate over who is the GOAT QB is now over. I made this post in response:

The Debate is only over because some don’t want to use any logic beyond 5 > 4. Joe Montana went 4-0 in SB’s, playing masterfully (with zero interceptions) in all of them. His 127.8 rating in the big game is a record that will never be touched for multiple SB’s). Unlike Brady, his passer rating went UP when the stakes were raised. His stats are better when compared to the peers of his era. Unfortunately for Joe, he only played 10 healthy seasons for the 49ers, 9 of those with his genius coach Bill Walsh. The game was brutal back then, QBs got destroyed, and Montana was a shell of himself by his late 30’s, finishing his career on a different team.

Compare that to Brady, who has now played 15 healthy seasons, all with the same coach and same franchise. Now stop and be rational for a moment. You don’t think Montana could’ve gotten a 5th ring with 5-6 more healthy seasons with his original coach? Of course he could’ve. That’s just one reason why the 5 > 4 argument is silly. Bradshaw has more rings than Marino, but ain’t nobody going to say Bradshaw was better. So because Brady now has a 5th ring, he's automatically better than Montana?
______________

That's not even considering spygate (I don't really care about deflategate). Personally, I think you could still make a sound argument for several guys, none of which had Bill Belichick, and few had the longevity of Brady. IMO, longevity doesn't = greatness.

We had this debate last night too.

We still think marino was a better QUARTERBACK.  Just not a better winner.

It's really hard to argue against Brady give his stats and his wins.

Did he have the advantage of the best coach? Yep.
Weak division? Yep.
TWO SB wins that should have been losses (Seattle and Atlanta) if the other team runs the ball a couple more times? Yep.
A little cheating? Yep.

But I think he's going to get the nod for GOAT from most people.

Yes.

It's not a matter of 5>4. That was just the last thing that left that allowed a substantial conversation.

The debate will always continue, mostly because of devil's advocates and the different eras of football. The NFL that Montana played in was different than Brady's, much like the NFL that Otto Graham played in was different.

But there is just about nothing that Montana did that Brady hasn't done better.

I would go with Peyton Manning but Tom is no doubt the most accomplished QB of all time.

(02-06-2017, 02:42 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Yes.
But there is just about nothing that Montana did that Brady hasn't done better.

You lost me there, because there's several pretty big things Montana did better or was at the very least arguably better.

1. Montana ranked 2 all time in passing efficiency when he retired. Brady currently ranks 3 all time and 3rd among active players. I'd argue that Montana's efficiency was more impressive considering the era. There's no debating that this is the easiest era for passing by a mile.

2. Montana raised his game in the playoffs, while Brady gets worse. Montana had a 92.3 rating in regular season and a 95.6 in the playoffs. Brady has a 97.2 rating in regular season and an 89.3 in the playoffs.

3. Montana saved his best for the SB. He never threw an 82 yard pick six. In fact, he never threw any INTs in a SB period. Overall, he had a 127.8 rating in the SB. Brady has a 95.2 rating with 5 INTs.

(02-06-2017, 02:28 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Florio made a post over at PFT where he claimed any debate over who is the GOAT QB is now over. I made this post in response:

The Debate is only over because some don’t want to use any logic beyond 5 > 4. Joe Montana went 4-0 in SB’s, playing masterfully (with zero interceptions) in all of them. His 127.8 rating in the big game is a record that will never be touched for multiple SB’s). Unlike Brady, his passer rating went UP when the stakes were raised. His stats are better when compared to the peers of his era. Unfortunately for Joe, he only played 10 healthy seasons for the 49ers, 9 of those with his genius coach Bill Walsh. The game was brutal back then, QBs got destroyed, and Montana was a shell of himself by his late 30’s, finishing his career on a different team.

Compare that to Brady, who has now played 15 healthy seasons, all with the same coach and same franchise. Now stop and be rational for a moment. You don’t think Montana could’ve gotten a 5th ring with 5-6 more healthy seasons with his original coach? Of course he could’ve. That’s just one reason why the 5 > 4 argument is silly. Bradshaw has more rings than Marino, but ain’t nobody going to say Bradshaw was better. So because Brady now has a 5th ring, he's automatically better than Montana?
______________

That's not even considering spygate (I don't really care about deflategate). Personally, I think you could still make a sound argument for several guys, none of which had Bill Belichick, and few had the longevity of Brady. IMO, longevity doesn't = greatness.

Excellent points. 5 over 4 is a blip when you consider how much longer Brady has played...with BB the whole time. 

Brady is great and has the most rings, but he's not the GOAT.

I would say he is the best QB of the modern era (late 90s to today). Montana was the best QB of the 80s to 90s era. Staubach of the 70s era. And Johnny Unitas of the 60s.

Yes.

Brady is nothing more than a product of the system he's in.  Matt Cassell anyone?  Its a system the rest of the NFL hasn't been able to figure out and copycat yet, but that's all it is.  Its just plug n play....dink n dunk. The Patriots should never have won the Atlanta, Seattle or their very first Super Bowl without the league's help.  They play in a historical weak conference, when was the last time the 'phins, Jets or Bills were any good? 

(02-06-2017, 04:00 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Brady is nothing more than a product of the system he's in.  Matt Cassell anyone?  Its a system the rest of the NFL hasn't been able to figure out and copycat yet, but that's all it is.  Its just plug n play....dink n dunk. The Patriots should never have won the Atlanta, Seattle or their very first Super Bowl without the league's help.  They play in a historical weak conference, when was the last time the 'phins, Jets or Bills were any good? 

I wouldn't say it's just "dink and dunk," since the way they do it involves such speed and precision, and sharp play calling.

But I agree with you it is a "system," and no one has quite figured it out. I think part of it is how they select for team attitude.
Think of how well second and third string quarterbacks do in the system.

I think Brady is a super quarterback, one of the best all time. If traded to the Bengals, they would seriously challenge the Steelers and actually win a playoff, though still not make it to the Super Bowl.

But I don't think he is as good as Montana or Marino. And there is one quarterback whom I thought was AMAZING though always played on a losing team--Archie Manning. How would he have done in Belicheck's system? I am sure as well or better than Tom.

(02-06-2017, 03:24 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: You lost me there, because there's several pretty big things Montana did better or was at the very least arguably better.

1. Montana ranked 2 all time in passing efficiency when he retired. Brady currently ranks 3 all time and 3rd among active players. I'd argue that Montana's efficiency was more impressive considering the era. There's no debating that this is the easiest era for passing by a mile.

2. Montana raised his game in the playoffs, while Brady gets worse. Montana had a 92.3 rating in regular season and a 95.6 in the playoffs. Brady has a 97.2 rating in regular season and an 89.3 in the playoffs.

3. Montana saved his best for the SB. He never threw an 82 yard pick six. In fact, he never threw any INTs in a SB period. Overall, he had a 127.8 rating in the SB. Brady has a 95.2 rating with 5 INTs.

You can argue eras until the cows come home. Montana didn't play when teams had a salary cap, where teams could have much more talent that your average team nowadays.  Montana led the league in accuracy a few times. Brady takes being the yards and touchdowns leader more times.  

Sure, you can argue that Montana is the better/best superbowl or playoff quarterback ever (would you say Sanchez > Brady then? Flacco = Brady?), but the debate is over greatest of all time, regular season and post season. Brady trumps Montana hands down. 

I'm fine with people saying that Montana was the best of his era, Brady was the best of his. But there is no argument for saying Montana > Brady anymore, if you're taking eras out of the equation. 

(02-06-2017, 02:28 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Florio made a post over at PFT where he claimed any debate over who is the GOAT QB is now over. I made this post in response:

The Debate is only over because some don’t want to use any logic beyond 5 > 4. Joe Montana went 4-0 in SB’s, playing masterfully (with zero interceptions) in all of them. His 127.8 rating in the big game is a record that will never be touched for multiple SB’s). Unlike Brady, his passer rating went UP when the stakes were raised. His stats are better when compared to the peers of his era. Unfortunately for Joe, he only played 10 healthy seasons for the 49ers, 9 of those with his genius coach Bill Walsh. The game was brutal back then, QBs got destroyed, and Montana was a shell of himself by his late 30’s, finishing his career on a different team.

Compare that to Brady, who has now played 15 healthy seasons, all with the same coach and same franchise. Now stop and be rational for a moment. You don’t think Montana could’ve gotten a 5th ring with 5-6 more healthy seasons with his original coach? Of course he could’ve. That’s just one reason why the 5 > 4 argument is silly. Bradshaw has more rings than Marino, but ain’t nobody going to say Bradshaw was better. So because Brady now has a 5th ring, he's automatically better than Montana?
______________

That's not even considering spygate (I don't really care about deflategate). Personally, I think you could still make a sound argument for several guys, none of which had Bill Belichick, and few had the longevity of Brady. IMO, longevity doesn't = greatness.

Shake wins the interwebs! Congratulations!

Great post!

Johnny, what do we have for him... it's a year supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco treat!

Montana had better teams around him, including the best WR to ever play.

Brady is the GOAT, imo. 

Brady has done a lot of winning with a lot of different people around him, so that's certainly something to take into consideration.

(02-06-2017, 03:42 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I would say he is the best QB of the modern era (late 90s to today). Montana was the best QB of the 80s to 90s era. Staubach of the 70s era. And Johnny Unitas of the 60s.

Fair enough. I guess I'd say I don't have any problem with people saying Brady is the best. Just take issue with anyone saying the debate is over now that Brady got his 5th ring. Personally, I'd still prefer a prime Montana. Marino was the best pure passer. I think Peyton would easily have 5 rings with Belichick.

So nothing against Brady. Just think you can still make a strong argument for 5-6 QBs.

(02-06-2017, 04:26 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: You can argue eras until the cows come home. Montana didn't play when teams had a salary cap, where teams could have much more talent that your average team nowadays.  Montana led the league in accuracy a few times. Brady takes being the yards and touchdowns leader more times.  

Sure, you can argue that Montana is the better/best superbowl or playoff quarterback ever (would you say Sanchez > Brady then? Flacco = Brady?), but the debate is over greatest of all time, regular season and post season. Brady trumps Montana hands down. 

I'm fine with people saying that Montana was the best of his era, Brady was the best of his. But there is no argument for saying Montana > Brady anymore, if you're taking eras out of the equation. 

I don't see a huge gap in talent level between the Pats and 49ers. The Pats have rented a ton of talent through the years. Guys like Seau, Moss, Welker, Revis, Browner, Dillon, Rodney Harrison, Long, etc. They've also had plenty of other talent like Gronk, Seymour, Wilfork, Law, Milloy, etc etc. On top of sound oline play and outstanding coaching. So I don't see much talent difference, but I do see more stability for Brady (same coaches, no HOF backup taking his job) and an easier era for passing by FAR.

I'm not sure why you're comparing Montana to Joe Flacco and Mark Sanchez of all people. Montana wasn't some average QB that played lights out in the playoffs. Montana was also a beast in regular season as well. 40,000 yards back when there was only a small handful to pass that once mythical number. 2nd best passer rating ever at the time of his retirement. Despite playing only 11 full seasons, he made 8 Pro Bowls with the same amount of MVPs as Brady (2).

So not only was he fantastic during regular season, he took his game to other worldly levels in postseason. Brady can't say the same and to me that's why Joe is still the GOAT.

(02-06-2017, 05:27 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Montana had better teams around him, including the best WR to ever play.

Brady is the GOAT, imo. 

Montana won 2 Super Bowl MVPs before Rice was a 49er, and the 49ers were an afterthought prior to Montana taking over.

I'm going with Joe Montana, as he never had rules established to protect QBs, from crying about being hit too hard, too much. Folks can bring up the salary cap argument all they want to, but the truth is the teams that Montana played against had the same talent stocking options as the 49ers.

I think Brady is the GOAT, but I will say this. It is AMAZING how close all of his superbowls have been. Every single one has come down to the wire. He could be 7-0 just as easily as he could be 0-7. It's pretty amazing stuff when you step back and look at it.

(02-06-2017, 09:56 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I don't see a huge gap in talent level between the Pats and 49ers. The Pats have rented a ton of talent through the years. Guys like Seau, Moss, Welker, Revis, Browner, Dillon, Rodney Harrison, Long, etc. They've also had plenty of other talent like Gronk, Seymour, Wilfork, Law, Milloy, etc etc. On top of sound oline play and outstanding coaching. So I don't see much talent difference, but I do see more stability for Brady (same coaches, no HOF backup taking his job) and an easier era for passing by FAR.

I'm not sure why you're comparing Montana to Joe Flacco and Mark Sanchez of all people. Montana wasn't some average QB that played lights out in the playoffs. Montana was also a beast in regular season as well. 40,000 yards back when there was only a small handful to pass that once mythical number. 2nd best passer rating ever at the time of his retirement. Despite playing only 11 full seasons, he made 8 Pro Bowls with the same amount of MVPs as Brady (2).

So not only was he fantastic during regular season, he took his game to other worldly levels in postseason. Brady can't say the same and to me that's why Joe is still the GOAT.


Montana won 2 Super Bowl MVPs before Rice was a 49er, and the 49ers were an afterthought prior to Montana taking over.

I'd still go with Brady. Playing in 7 SB's in quite a feat, and honestly I could see him getting back again. And Montana did have Rice for a couple of those SB's. Who's the best WR Brady ever won one with? Branch? People can talk about the system in NE all they want but they're not winning SB's with the Matt Cassel's or Jimmy G's of the world. It's as much Brady as it is Belichick imo.

Not trying to take anything away from Montana btw. He's all I remember hearing about as a kid. He's definitely right up there.

(02-06-2017, 09:56 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I don't see a huge gap in talent level between the Pats and 49ers. The Pats have rented a ton of talent through the years. Guys like Seau, Moss, Welker, Revis, Browner, Dillon, Rodney Harrison, Long, etc. They've also had plenty of other talent like Gronk, Seymour, Wilfork, Law, Milloy, etc etc. On top of sound oline play and outstanding coaching. So I don't see much talent difference, but I do see more stability for Brady (same coaches, no HOF backup taking his job) and an easier era for passing by FAR.

I'm not sure why you're comparing Montana to Joe Flacco and Mark Sanchez of all people. Montana wasn't some average QB that played lights out in the playoffs. Montana was also a beast in regular season as well. 40,000 yards back when there was only a small handful to pass that once mythical number. 2nd best passer rating ever at the time of his retirement. Despite playing only 11 full seasons, he made 8 Pro Bowls with the same amount of MVPs as Brady (2).

So not only was he fantastic during regular season, he took his game to other worldly levels in postseason. Brady can't say the same and to me that's why Joe is still the GOAT.


Montana won 2 Super Bowl MVPs before Rice was a 49er, and the 49ers were an afterthought prior to Montana taking over.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I guess in response to your OP, there will always be people who question who is the GOAT. 

I just don't think that playing with one coach and staying relatively healthy throughout a career should be considered to Brady's detriment. Yes, passing 40k yards in Montana's era was beastly. Who is to say that passing 60k in this era isn't? Or passing for 50 TDs in a season? Or leading a team to a 16-0 regular season? Or a >2% INT ratio even with all the passing? 


There is really no wrong answer here, but I'll chalk it up to nostalgia factor. Kinda like no matter how good the next Mario Kart game is, the SNES one is still the best.