Robert Kraft says Tom Brady better than Joe Montana.

That's his opinion and he's entitled to it.

Originally posted by zomg_its_ryan:
Seriously, what do you expect him to say about his quarterback?

What Kraft said:

"I think that Tommy, with all due respect, is better than Joe Montana,"



a more professional way to say it:

"with all due respect to the previous great QB's that have played in the NFL, there is no other QB i'd personally rather have than Tom Brady."



i don't know exactly what he was asked, but as a professional in the NFL, he should know not to mention anyone names specifically because it is perceived by the fans/media as being a "call out"

CONCLUSION

Comparing their stats side-by-side, it looks clear that Brady has the upper hand. But by taking a deeper look at how they compared to their peers in their own eras, Montana fares better. Brady can't compare to Montana's perfect 4-0 Super Bowl record and 11-0 touchdown-to-interception ratio. If Super Bowls are your ultimate measuring stick, Montana is your guy.

If raw numbers are all that matters, there's a solid argument for Brady. But if you take into account how much quarterback play has changed by comparing against their peers, Montana seems to come out ahead.

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/50217/better-quarterback-brady-or-montana

5 Super Bows, won 3, lost 2. Had some huge yardage and TD years over time. Had 1 perfect season. Albeit losing the Super Bowl in the final game. With Brady I think he was on pretty good teams too. Those first 3 he really had great defenses holding down the other team. That's how they always got past Peyton Manning. They had great D. His first few he could sort of "game manage" albeit at a higher end than what we have seen from Alex Smith. But he wasn't throwing 40+ TD's in some of his earlier years. Anybody that watches Brady can see he is super accurate and poised in the pocket. Reads the field well. He's a definite winner over time.

I think Brady is obviously great. The eras are different eras. Joe played with great teams and had a great organization. So did Brady though. Neither did it by themself. Honestly as a pure QB in some of those years I thought Manning was better. But IMO his teams were not as good. He never had the defense Brady had. I'm not sure how history will think of him. He's clearly excellent but also had excellent teams and a great organization and owner. So he did not build it by himself. But could you not say the exact same about Joe Montana?

Originally posted by zomg_its_ryan:

Originally posted by Rubberneck36:

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:
robert kraft can suck a duck. 4-0 in Superbowls. whats bradys record?

3-2

He's been to 1 more super bowl than Montana....

ya but hes lost two and had two of his wins won by his kicker. all 4 superbowls joe won and it wasnt by a damn kicker from half a field away. 11 TDs to ZERO INTs in the superbowl , his passer rating in superbowls is 127.8. joe cool, the greatest QB of all time. 4-0 is better than 3-2, they dont play to be runner up, they play to be the best and joe was the best every time.

It's not that farfetched of a comparison, however Montana played when there were far less defensive restrictions.

In comparison, Brady plays in a more QB pansy league, while Montana played in a real man's league. Brady got to spray the ball all over the field, Montana had to share the wealth and still produced outstanding numbers.

Montana wins no question. Brady was asked this question last year and admitted as much.

Robert Kraft said Tom Brady is better than Joe Montana. Do you agree?


39%
Yes
61%
No (Total votes: 44,955)
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/8322079/brady-better-montana

One thing about those stats is that Joe played in a WCO, that alone makes a lot of difference since we ran the ball and used alot of short passes, while as Brady throws it like 40-50 times a game, as do most QB nowadays.....not to mention Joe played against peps like The Real LT and Derrick Thomas....who does Brady play against, T-Sizzle.....D-Ware, great players but don't even compare to the other two

Originally posted by WookieOftheYear:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
When was the last time Brady won a Super Bowl without his kicker???

Montana blew teams out that had QB's like Marino and Elway, not depend on a kicker to win it for him.

Who's the owner of the Patriots again??

Thats all they had, those teams werent as good as the Giants teams that beat the Pats both times. Kicker argument is not a very good one and is played out. Dont forget if it wasnt for a dropped int in the endzone Montana would have a L on side for a super bowl, he was lucky he got another chance

Dude you gotta be kidding me with that first sentence!!! LOL we were the better team last year than the Giants. And the kicker argument is a very good one, it showed that he couldn't close out a drive on his behalf and relied on his kicker to close the deal. You say if it wasn't for a dropped INT in the endzone Montana would've had a L on his side. Well If Brady's kicker missed two last minute FG's Brady would be 1-4 in Super Bowls.

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by WookieOftheYear:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
When was the last time Brady won a Super Bowl without his kicker???

Montana blew teams out that had QB's like Marino and Elway, not depend on a kicker to win it for him.

Who's the owner of the Patriots again??

Thats all they had, those teams werent as good as the Giants teams that beat the Pats both times. Kicker argument is not a very good one and is played out. Dont forget if it wasnt for a dropped int in the endzone Montana would have a L on side for a super bowl, he was lucky he got another chance

Dude you gotta be kidding me with that first sentence!!! LOL we were the better team last year than the Giants. And the kicker argument is a very good one, it showed that he couldn't close out a drive on his behalf and relied on his kicker to close the deal. You say if it wasn't for a dropped INT in the endzone Montana would've had a L on his side. Well If Brady's kicker missed two last minute FG's Brady would be 1-4 in Super Bowls.

also saying that thats all those teams had was f**kin retarded. elway had both a 1000 yard rusher and a 1000 receiver on his team and a very good defense. two of marino's WRs had 1300 yards, he had a few probowlers on his o-line, also had a good 3 headed back system that was very productive. that was the year marino set the TD record and put up video game numbers and the niners were supposed to get smashed on. Montana is Montana, and he was on fire. thats why we won both of those games but we also had great surrounding players on offense and defense. you dont go to the superbowl when you dont have good players. saying a team only had one person that matters is just not smart.

put brady on montanas teams and he wins 5+ superbowls

Originally posted by RonMexico:

put brady on montanas teams and he wins 5+ superbowls

In which era? Imo Brady would not have survived Montana's era. Way too immobile.

This is all subjective.

dat ish cray

He might be a little biased, but that argument is invalid.

Joe never had to rely on footage , field goal kickers, blow big time playoff hopes and lose as much as Brady has.














That being said......

Robert Kraft can suck on my sausage