Joe Montana vs. Tom Brady

Originally posted by midrdan:

Originally posted by SashRoxx-1:
Thing is this...Everyone seems to say J


Yes, it's a team sport and you don't win championships by yourself - see Peyton Manning - but the reason Montana is better than Bradshaw despite the fact that they each had 4 SBs is because Montana and the offense propelled the 49ers for that decade. Pittsburgh was more known for the Steel Curtain and Franco Harris. Not to say Bradshaw wasn't a great QB - he was. But Montana played a larger role, if you will, with the 49ers success than Bradshaw did with Pittsburghs.

And no, if Brady wins another 2 rings that does not necessarily put him above Joe Montana. Bill Russell has 11 rings. Jordan has 6. But the consensus is Jordan is the GOAT. Because Jordan was more instrumental in getting those 6 than Russell was in getting his 11 (that is debatable, but Russell did play with 4 other HOFers on his team, whereas Jordan played with 1).

Montana definitely played a bigger role. Other than the most zealous Steelers fans, I don't think people rate Bradshaw higher than Montana. But the charismatic baldy did have a nice SB rating and did whatever it took to win. Bradshaw is definitely one of the greatest, but I don't think he's better than Manning, Marino, Favre, etc. I'd take those three latter guys to start my team with over Bradshaw. I can picture the Steelers having similar success with Marino instead of Bradshaw, but I can't picture Bradshaw doing what Marino did in Miami. IMO, there are more scenarios and circumstances in which Marino would succeed in.

The Russell-Jordan debate is interesting. I've always ranked Russell higher - Jabbar also - but Jordan is definitely the greatest at his position, perhaps even at the top of the overall guard list. I can certainly understand giving more weight to offensive/scoring elements though. But again, sounds like splitting hairs, but not really. Russell: greater basketball player. Jordan: certainly better. Russell doesn't rank close to Jordan on my 'best ever' list.

I agree with others that complete body of work has to be taken into account, not just rings. But if it's relatively close, the guy that won more is simply greater. That's just how it goes. "What ifs" are fun to discuss, but you gotta go with what is. Who knows if Joe Montana would have succeeded in Buffalo, but he achieved what he did. He won rings to go along with some darn nice statistics. QB is the most important position, he's the NFL's greatest player ever.

Joe Montana wins superbowls every time, Brady doesn't.....

/Thread

Originally posted by sincalfaithful:
Oh I thought this thread was comparing Joe Montana vs. Adam Vinatieri(sp?)

Originally posted by Axl49:

Originally posted by sincalfaithful:
Oh I thought this thread was comparing Joe Montana vs. Adam Vinatieri(sp?)

Ah yes!

Joe hands down. There are so many reasons why. Here are a few...

1) Montana had better coaching. (Has Brady won anything after the Pats got caught cheating?)

2) Montana had the better offense. (The Spread only works in college)

3) Montana had better offensive teammates. (John Taylor would be the number 1 guy on the Pats)

4) The Niners were built around Montana. (Brady would have been catching splinters for 3 more seasons if Bledsoe would NOT have gotten hurt)

5) Montana had more competition. (Dolphins - Marino, Bears - McMahon, Giants - Simms, Rams - Dickerson, Bengals - Esiason, and Broncos - Elway)

Originally posted by RalphieMay:
Joe Montana was an overrated, injury-prone dickwod. Not nearly as accurate as JEFF GARCIA, though.

Ra;[hie May is actually one of my favorite comedians... this isnt funny though