If Tom Brady wins his 4th super bowl...

I was having this debate with some friends, and one of them pointed out the fact that Montana threw the ball a lot less than Brady. I got curious, so I compiled all of the passing stats from the Super Bowls that Montana and Brady played in. It is correct that Montana's teams ran the ball on a greater percentage of plays during his 4 games (Montana passed 45% of the time), whereas Brady passed 64% of the time in his 6 games.

Those percentages have to be put into context though, as the rules in the NFL after 1995 drastically changed to favor the passing game. 1995 - chucking rule, 1996 illegal contact, 2001 late hits, 2002 helmet to helmet, 2004 defensive holding, 2006 hits below the QB's knees, and 2009 defenseless receiver. ALL teams pass much more now, and for good reason - there is a huge advantage in doing so.

The only way to truly compare these statistics is to judge them by their efficiency (even then, Montana has an edge because of the rules that he had to play under). In Montana's 4 games, he averaged 9.29 yards per attempt, his completion percentage was 68%, and he had a TD pass every 11.3 attempts for a passer rating of 127.8. Brady on the other hand has averaged 6.78 yards per attempt, his completion percentage is 66%, and he has had a TD pass every 17.8 attempts for a passer rating of 95.3. Montana also had 105 yards rushing (6.17 per attempt) in his 4 games with 2 rushing TD's! Brady had 11 yards rushing (1.83 per attempt) in his 6 games. It's not a difficult decision.

Montana played before the Sportscenter/fantasy football era so gross passing stats were not as highly regarded as they are today. He was a stone cold assassin that was as efficient as any QB was or will ever be. And just imagine if he would have had film of the other teams' practices, and/or played with a deflated ball that gave him a better grip!

Originally posted by Furlow:
I was having this debate with some friends, and one of them pointed out the fact that Montana threw the ball a lot less than Brady. I got curious, so I compiled all of the passing stats from the Super Bowls that Montana and Brady played in. It is correct that Montana's teams ran the ball on a greater percentage of plays during his 4 games (Montana passed 45% of the time), whereas Brady passed 64% of the time in his 6 games.

Those percentages have to be put into context though, as the rules in the NFL after 1995 drastically changed to favor the passing game. 1995 - chucking rule, 1996 illegal contact, 2001 late hits, 2002 helmet to helmet, 2004 defensive holding, 2006 hits below the QB's knees, and 2009 defenseless receiver. ALL teams pass much more now, and for good reason - there is a huge advantage in doing so.

The only way to truly compare these statistics is to judge them by their efficiency (even then, Montana has an edge because of the rules that he had to play under). In Montana's 4 games, he averaged 9.29 yards per attempt, his completion percentage was 68%, and he had a TD pass every 11.3 attempts for a passer rating of 127.8. Brady on the other hand has averaged 6.78 yards per attempt, his completion percentage is 66%, and he has had a TD pass every 17.8 attempts for a passer rating of 95.3. Montana also had 105 yards rushing (6.17 per attempt) in his 4 games with 2 rushing TD's! Brady had 11 yards rushing (1.83 per attempt) in his 6 games. It's not a difficult decision.

Montana played before the Sportscenter/fantasy football era so gross passing stats were not as highly regarded as they are today. He was a stone cold assassin that was as efficient as any QB was or will ever be. And just imagine if he would have had film of the other teams' practices, and/or played with a deflated ball that gave him a better grip!

Oh how many of us forget yesterday for today. Joe and Walsh were the template for what is happening today. They've been studied and used as teaching material and yet still they are hard to surpass. Joe and Walsh also didn't play or coach as long as Brady and Bellicheck but what they did in the time they played and coached was remarkable. If they protected QBs then as they do now and catered rules there is no telling what Joe and Bill might have accomplished. The game is about fantasy football now and notsomuch football

Let me start off by saying Tom Brady has had an amazing career, is a 1st ballot HOFer, and although I can't stand him, recognize him as one of the greatest competitors to ever play professional sports, period.

That being said, here are the reasons I can't put him on the same pedestal as Joe Montana:

- Brady's Super Bowl success is marred by being part of a CHEATING organization and historically terrible officiating calls (Tuck Rule)

- Most of his GW drives were because the greatest K in NFL History, Adam Vinatieri, was able to nail borderline impossible kicks

- Choked in 2 Super Bowls (Joe Montana not only never LOST a SB, he never even threw an INT in one)

- Has ALL DAY to throw behind his OL

- Too many rules to make the passing game easier in Brady's era vs. Joe's era

- The REAL MVP of the Super Bowl was Pete Carroll. Joe Montana never had the luxury of a cheap Super Bowl W because of an incredibly stupid call by the other team.


Call me biased, but Brady gets way too much credit, played for a cheater and gets way too much protection from officials.

Joe Montana's career would have been much longer and he could have had more playoff trips and chances if he was playing in a professional flag football league, too.

Originally posted by Pillbusta:
Oh how many of us forget yesterday for today. Joe and Walsh were the template for what is happening today. They've been studied and used as teaching material and yet still they are hard to surpass. Joe and Walsh also didn't play or coach as long as Brady and Bellicheck but what they did in the time they played and coached was remarkable. If they protected QBs then as they do now and catered rules there is no telling what Joe and Bill might have accomplished. The game is about fantasy football now and notsomuch football

To add to your point.... Joe Montana still had some productive years in him before the 49ers traded him to give Steve Young his run. Who knows how many more trips to the SB and W's Joe could have had if they let him QB those 49er teams a few more years.

In 11 years where he actually PLAYED for the 49ers, not counting injury and his 2 KC years, Joe was 4-0 in Super Bowls.

Brady played 14 seasons without injury (No, I'm not giving him a freebie for not getting on the field as a rookie), and is 4-2 in Super Bowls.

Could Joe have won another Super Bowl if he stayed with the 49ers for 3 more years and was protected in the same manner Brady is? I wouldn't bet against it.

Originally posted by theduke85:
They weren't as good as they were in 2013, but even despite the injuries this year they were still very much an elite defense. Hell, just two weeks ago they absolutely obliterated the Packers, giving up only 19 points despite five turnovers by Seattle's offense/special teams. The only reason they were in the Super Bowl at all was because of a heroic effort by their defense.

Sherman hurt his arm in the NFCCG, but he only allowed 1 catch for 6 yards in the SB. Chancellor hurt his leg in practice just before the SB, but he was running around fine, and racked up 10 tackles in the game (team leader had 12). Avril and Lane missed a lot of the game, but those guys are like the 7th and 8th best players on that defense. Losing role players is not an excuse. Besides, how many players are not dinged up by the time the SB rolls around?

And even if Seattle's defense wasn't as elite as they were last year, consider this: in Super Bowl history, teams trailing by 10 or more points heading into the 4th quarter were 0-29 (although that's kind of a misleading stat, because if you're losing by 30 points headed into the 4th you're obviously going to lose). When New England punted at the start of the 4th quarter, Seattle's probability of winning the game was 96.1%. To put that in perspective, when Montana and the 49ers got the ball with 3:20 left in the '89 Super Bowl against the Bengals, Cincy's win probably was "only" 82.9%. This was a historic comeback.

I think there's a middlegrounds between what both you guys are saying.

Saying the Seahawks' D was "a shell of its former self" by the Super Bowl is a big exaggeration... but so is to downplay the significance of how banged up the Seahawks players were.

Cliff Avril is arguably their best pass rusher and has been in on a NUMBER of key plays throughout their playoff success, including the pressure that led to Kap's infamous INT to Sherman to end the NFCCG. He is a "rotational" player by design, because Seattle likes to keep their DL fresh, not because he's not good enough to be a starter. He was a starter on Detroit's DL a few years ago when they were considered the best 4 man front in the NFL and a scary pass rush.

The other "role player", is the guy that picked off Tom Brady in the End Zone in the Super Bowl. Hard for me to believe that NE struggling to score and then putting up the points they did after Lane exits the game had nothing to do with Lane's absence.

I don't think Earl Thomas or Sherman's injuries affected their ability to cover, but I don't think enough people realize what a torn MCL is and how painful it is.... especially only 2 days after. Unless you've had the injury, it's not fair to say Kam Chancellor was just fine. He was, IMO, not flying to the ball nearly as fast as he normally does.

Originally posted by LowerTheBoom:

Originally posted by Pillbusta:
Oh how many of us forget yesterday for today. Joe and Walsh were the template for what is happening today. They've been studied and used as teaching material and yet still they are hard to surpass. Joe and Walsh also didn't play or coach as long as Brady and Bellicheck but what they did in the time they played and coached was remarkable. If they protected QBs then as they do now and catered rules there is no telling what Joe and Bill might have accomplished. The game is about fantasy football now and notsomuch football

To add to your point.... Joe Montana still had some productive years in him before the 49ers traded him to give Steve Young his run. Who knows how many more trips to the SB and W's Joe could have had if they let him QB those 49er teams a few more years.

In 11 years where he actually PLAYED for the 49ers, not counting injury and his 2 KC years, Joe was 4-0 in Super Bowls.

Brady played 14 seasons without injury (No, I'm not giving him a freebie for not getting on the field as a rookie), and is 4-2 in Super Bowls.

Could Joe have won another Super Bowl if he stayed with the 49ers for 3 more years and was protected in the same manner Brady is? I wouldn't bet against it.

I agree with these points but Brady did miss the entire 2008 season due to an ACL injury in the opener against Kansas City.

The biggest point was that QBs could be ANNIHILATED back then. Giants' fans have told me that the best way to beat Montana was to KO him because otherwise it would be a tough game to win.

Originally posted by Furlow:
I was having this debate with some friends, and one of them pointed out the fact that Montana threw the ball a lot less than Brady. I got curious, so I compiled all of the passing stats from the Super Bowls that Montana and Brady played in. It is correct that Montana's teams ran the ball on a greater percentage of plays during his 4 games (Montana passed 45% of the time), whereas Brady passed 64% of the time in his 6 games.

Those percentages have to be put into context though, as the rules in the NFL after 1995 drastically changed to favor the passing game. 1995 - chucking rule, 1996 illegal contact, 2001 late hits, 2002 helmet to helmet, 2004 defensive holding, 2006 hits below the QB's knees, and 2009 defenseless receiver. ALL teams pass much more now, and for good reason - there is a huge advantage in doing so.

The only way to truly compare these statistics is to judge them by their efficiency (even then, Montana has an edge because of the rules that he had to play under). In Montana's 4 games, he averaged 9.29 yards per attempt, his completion percentage was 68%, and he had a TD pass every 11.3 attempts for a passer rating of 127.8. Brady on the other hand has averaged 6.78 yards per attempt, his completion percentage is 66%, and he has had a TD pass every 17.8 attempts for a passer rating of 95.3. Montana also had 105 yards rushing (6.17 per attempt) in his 4 games with 2 rushing TD's! Brady had 11 yards rushing (1.83 per attempt) in his 6 games. It's not a difficult decision.

Montana played before the Sportscenter/fantasy football era so gross passing stats were not as highly regarded as they are today. He was a stone cold assassin that was as efficient as any QB was or will ever be. And just imagine if he would have had film of the other teams' practices, and/or played with a deflated ball that gave him a better grip!

Dan Marino also played before the sportscenter / fatanasy football era.

And I so detest that stupid spy gate crap. Either people forget or they don't want to acknowledge it. They filmed the walk through while 80,000 other people in the stadium were watching. Pats didn't get in trouble for filming it, it was the angle that they filmed it from. It is 100% legal to film another teams, you just can't do it from your own sideline.

this debate is over, more than ever now.

Joe is the greatest

Brady, for all his accomplishments, will be marred by allegations of cheating.

Originally posted by LowerTheBoom:
Let me start off by saying Tom Brady has had an amazing career, is a 1st ballot HOFer, and although I can't stand him, recognize him as one of the greatest competitors to ever play professional sports, period.

That being said, here are the reasons I can't put him on the same pedestal as Joe Montana:

- Brady's Super Bowl success is marred by being part of a CHEATING organization and historically terrible officiating calls (Tuck Rule)

- Most of his GW drives were because the greatest K in NFL History, Adam Vinatieri, was able to nail borderline impossible kicks

- Choked in 2 Super Bowls (Joe Montana not only never LOST a SB, he never even threw an INT in one)

- Has ALL DAY to throw behind his OL

- Too many rules to make the passing game easier in Brady's era vs. Joe's era

- The REAL MVP of the Super Bowl was Pete Carroll. Joe Montana never had the luxury of a cheap Super Bowl W because of an incredibly stupid call by the other team.


Call me biased, but Brady gets way too much credit, played for a cheater and gets way too much protection from officials.

Joe Montana's career would have been much longer and he could have had more playoff trips and chances if he was playing in a professional flag football league, too.

Not so sure about this 1st ballot HOFer now. Joe doesn't have any black marks on his career, but brady and the pats do:
1. Tuck Rule
2. Anytime Brady whines (which is A LOT), the refs give in to him.
3. Spygate
4. Deflategate
5. Refs allow field crew ON THE FIELD to clear a path for the kicker to make a field goal in a playoff game.

And totally agree, (and always said) with your point about Adam Vinatieri. HE was the reason the pats won 2 superbowls NOT brady. And add in the seahawks screw-up last year, that amounts to maybe 1 of the 4 can be attributed to brady.

You guys think the Colts would have won if they did not deflate the ball? They got blown out. Totally owned. The game was not close at all.....

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

You guys think the Colts would have won if they did not deflate the ball? They got blown out. Totally owned. The game was not close at all.....

Then why did they do it? Why take the risk of getting caught if there is no reward in doing so...

Brady a cheater. A good QB but a cheater. Ravens had them dead to rights. Rams in 2001 got screwed out of that SB and the 2004 SB vs the Eagles, The Patriots stole the Eagles signals and knew when Philly was blitzing and Ran screen passes to Corey Dillon almost perfectly a few times when the Eagles had the Pats stuck.

Basically the Patriots and Brady are a Good Team no doubt but there better be * marks on ALL THEIR Super Bowl Wins and appearances simply for the Fact that they have gotten BUSTED 3 times cheating!!!!! That is VERY ALARMING and SCARY!!! I hate that team with a PASSION.

Tommy boy is about to speak on NFLN. Tune in for more lies!!!

Originally posted by ElephantHaley:

Brady a cheater. A good QB but a cheater. Ravens had them dead to rights. Rams in 2001 got screwed out of that SB and the 2004 SB vs the Eagles, The Patriots stole the Eagles signals and knew when Philly was blitzing and Ran screen passes to Corey Dillon almost perfectly a few times when the Eagles had the Pats stuck.

Basically the Patriots and Brady are a Good Team no doubt but there better be * marks on ALL THEIR Super Bowl Wins and appearances simply for the Fact that they have gotten BUSTED 3 times cheating!!!!! That is VERY ALARMING and SCARY!!! I hate that team with a PASSION.

You are by far the worst member on this forum. No offense.

Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
You are by far the worst member on this forum. No offense.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.