Montana's got company

[greyhammer90]

Carroll's decision to throw the ball on the goal line was not as crazy as people have made it out to be. I'm not saying it was a good decision, but it wasn't "stupid".

Seattle has the ball at the NE 5 yard line with 1:14 left, and one timeout. Down here, where everyone is going to pile in close, if you run the ball it is going to take a lot of time off of the clock. The defense is going to pile on, and take their sweet-@ss time getting up off of the pile. So you are probably going to have to throw the ball at least once, anyway. You got a good gain on 1st down, and the defense left their jumbo goal line package out there. So the best time to throw is on 2nd down. It's not Carroll's fault that his QB couldn't read the defender on what equates to a simple slant route. It's not like Marshawn Lynch is incapable of being stoned at the line of scrimmage, and you were not going to have time to run him 4 times, with only 1 timeout. And heaven help you if someone gets injured and you either lose that timeout or have a runoff of time.

That's why it's a chess game. Carroll obviously thought that NE would anticipate that any pass would include a roll out, and the defenders in the middle would start to drift outside, therefore leaving the middle open. Add a pick(rub) to that, and you have a high probability of success. But, like in chess, the opponent doesn't always react the way you hope. That doesn't stop you from gambling, though.

I understand that I'm working off of results from a universe that doesn't exist, but I still feel as though you're having to work really hard to rationalize that decision. On the first down, Lynch had run for 4 1/2 yards against a similar goal line front. They were a half yard away from taking the lead with fifty seconds left in the super bowl with the best RB in the game. They had a timeout. The quick read required along with the incredibly tight field made a turnover much more likely than running the ball. (Also I'd add that at the throwing speed needed to hit a receiver on that quick slant there is a chance that the ball is bounced up in the air off someone's pads/helmet/hands. That's another pick just waiting to happen.)

You said it yourself, every part of the game has some form of gambling involved. But that was one of the worst gambles I've ever seen given all the options available. It was a classic case of a coach outthinking himself when the pressure ratcheted up.

 

[autry_denson]

I can't read through all of this right now, but I'd say a couple things:

1. I love Joe Montana. I am not old enough to have seen him play at ND, but he was my favorite NFL player when I was a kid and obviously that he is a ND guy only makes him more of a favorite. (Actually, that is the way I look at it now, but really Montana is a big reason I became a ND fan as a kid.)

2. I think if you're going to name a Greatest Ever, for QBs it has to be some combination statistical accomplishment and team success because of the nature of the position.

3. Tom Brady combines those two areas better than anyone that has ever played. You could make a case for Brady being a top-3 QB of all time using either of those measures, and the same cannot be said of anyone else that has ever played.

4. Brady will pass Dan Marino and has a realistic shot to finish ahead of Drew Brees in passing yardage, which would put him third all-time. He will also pass Marino and has a realistic shot to finish ahead of Brees in passing touchdowns, which would also put him third all-time. He is currently fifth in career QBR, but it is very reasonable that he could be second by the end of next year if he has a good season - he is percentage points behind Steve Young, and within two points of Manning and Romo. The guys on all these lists with Brady (Manning, Marino, Favre and Brees) have combined for three championships - less than Brady's four.

5. Only Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana have won as many Super Bowls as Brady. Montana is 13th in yardage, 11th in touchdowns and 10th in QBR. Bradshaw is 53rd in yardage, 31st in TDs and 137th in QBR. (Obviously they all played in different eras, but those differences are stark.) Brady has won more conference championships than any QB in history, has the best career winning percentage among QBs with enough starts to qualify, and he will soon pass Brett Favre and likely Peyton Manning and retire with the most wins of any QB to ever play.

6. Someone in this thread said that Tom Brady is a game manager. Tom Brady has played exactly one full season with an all-pro caliber WR (Moss in 2007), and he threw for 5000 yards and 50 TDs! The 50 TDs were the most ever at the time, and his 117 QBR is still the fourth best season in history. He is also a two-time MVP. Also, see no. 4, above.

7. Someone in this thread wondered whether Tom Brady won last night's game or Pete Carroll lost it. I can't pretend like Carroll's play call at the end didn't help the Patriots, but Brady went 13/15 for 130 yards and two TDs in the fourth quarter to pull off the biggest fourth quarter comeback in Super Bowl history against one of the elite defenses in the history of football (which had given up one second half TD since October). So criticizing Carroll is fair, but it isn't like the game was just handed to the Patriots. Brady played arguably the greatest fourth quarter in the history of the sport, considering the stakes and the circumstance.

8. I kind of brought this up before in no. 5, above, but it is crazy to me that people would say "Joe Montana is better because he never lost a Super Bowl and Brady lost two." That is arguing that losing in the divisional round or not even making the playoffs at all is better than winning your conference. That makes no sense.

9. Fuck Michigan. Just so we're clear.

Wish I wrote this. Every word is right.

 

[DonnieNarco]

Comparing stats between the 80s and now is pointless. Completely different games.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Comparing stats between the 80s and now is pointless. Completely different games.

Well, it isn't possible to compare using absolute values, but it isn't pointless. You can era-adjust the stats based on your understanding of those differences.

 

[IHateMarkMay]

If we are saying that Tom Brady is in the same class as Joe Montana because of super bowl's, then that is completely wrong. I haven't looked at all of the posts, but has anybody posted their superbowl numbers???

Brady: 6 SBs, 164 of 247 (66.4%), 1605 yds, 13:4 td:int, 95.3 rating, 0 rushing td.

Montana 4 SBs, 83 of 122 (68%), 1142 yds, 11:0 td:int, 127.8 rating, 2 rushing td.

Brady: 267.5 yd/game, 2.16:.67 total td:int.
Montana: 285.5 yd/game, 3.25:0 total td:int.

Brady: 4 wins, 6 Superbowls, 3 MVPs
Montana: 4 wins, 4 Superbowls, 3 MVPs

Not even close.

 

[autry_denson]

If we are saying that Tom Brady is in the same class as Joe Montana because of super bowl's, then that is completely wrong. I haven't looked at all of the posts, but has anybody posted their superbowl numbers???

Brady: 6 SBs, 164 of 247 (66.4%), 1605 yds, 13:4 td:int, 95.3 rating, 0 rushing td.

Montana 4 SBs, 83 of 122 (68%), 1142 yds, 11:0 td:int, 127.8 rating, 2 rushing td.

Brady: 267.5 yd/game, 2.16:.67 total td:int.
Montana: 285.5 yd/game, 3.25:0 total td:int.

Brady: 4 wins, 6 Superbowls, 3 MVPs
Montana: 4 wins, 4 Superbowls, 3 MVPs

Not even close.

Montana's stats are censored b/c there were more years where he lost earlier in the playoffs than Brady. Look at playoff stats and they look virtually identical.

I'll defend Montana's Super Bowl performances all day but he shouldn't be rewarded in this debate for losing earlier in the playoffs.

 

[Nick Setta]

Montana's stats are censored b/c there were more years where he lost earlier in the playoffs than Brady. Look at playoff stats and they look virtually identical.

I'll defend Montana's Super Bowl performances all day but he shouldn't be rewarded in this debate for losing earlier in the playoffs.

He played in less years against better competition.

 

[kmoose]

I understand that I'm working off of results from a universe that doesn't exist, but I still feel as though you're having to work really hard to rationalize that decision. On the first down, Lynch had run for 4 1/2 yards against a similar goal line front. They were a half yard away from taking the lead with fifty seconds left in the super bowl with the best RB in the game. They had a timeout. The quick read required along with the incredibly tight field made a turnover much more likely than running the ball. (Also I'd add that at the throwing speed needed to hit a receiver on that quick slant there is a chance that the ball is bounced up in the air off someone's pads/helmet/hands. That's another pick just waiting to happen.)

You said it yourself, every part of the game has some form of gambling involved. But that was one of the worst gambles I've ever seen given all the options available. It was a classic case of a coach outthinking himself when the pressure ratcheted up.

So you would have run into a defensive front that had more men on the line than you had people to block them? Or would you have thrown against that alignment?

But again.............I am not arguing that the play call was brilliant, or even right. But those who are saying it was the dumbest call of all time are just wrong.

 

[pkt77242]

So you would have run into a defensive front that had more men on the line than you had people to block them? Or would you have thrown against that alignment?

But again.............I am not arguing that the play call was brilliant, or even right. But those who are saying it was the dumbest call of all time are just wrong.

The actual play call was one of the worst that I have ever see. Not because it was a pass because of what type of pass it was. As many have said here there are a few pass plays that would have been ok, a play action pass to role Wilson out or a jump ball in the back corner to their tall WR Matthews would have been ok but that pick play and slant to the crowded center of the field was horrific.

 

[greyhammer90]

So you would have run into a defensive front that had more men on the line than you had people to block them? Or would you have thrown against that alignment?

But again.............I am not arguing that the play call was brilliant, or even right. But those who are saying it was the dumbest call of all time are just wrong.

Down by four with a half yard to go, another guaranteed shot at the endzone to win the superbowl, with lynch and russell wilson? Absolutely. Especially over a quick slant.

 

[kmoose]

Down by four with a half yard to go, another guaranteed shot at the endzone to win the superbowl, with lynch and russell wilson? Absolutely. Especially over a quick slant.

Meh! Lynch is a pretty average "one yard" back, let alone against a goal line front with not enough blockers in front of him. To be honest, I probably would have called a run/pass option for Wilson. Roll out and take a look; if it's there, take it. If not, throw the ball out of the end zone and we'll figure something else out.

 

[irishfan]

I disagree. We are talking about who the best QB is, not the best team. Montana performed flawlessly in all of his Super Bowl victories. Brady has not. Hell, he threw two picks last night and they still gave him the MVP (Mostly because no one else took the game over).

Brady didn't take over the game last night or put the team on his back. They won despite him throwing two costly picks. Montana turned it on in all of his Super Bowls. You are comparing team accomplishments with personal accomplishments. The Patriots put Tom Brady in more Super Bowl appearances and that's what allowed him to match some of Joe's numbers. Give Joe two more appearances and he would have probably won two more rings and another MVP.

13/15 for 124 yards and 2 TDs and 0 INTs in the 4th quarter. Most yards and TDs in a game against that secondary all season long. Somehow that's not "taking over".....

Last sentence made me laugh. Discrediting Brady's Super Bowl stats because he led his team to 2 more than Montana....sounds like that's just a another stat for the Brady>Montana argument.

 

[Rhode Irish]

If we are saying that Tom Brady is in the same class as Joe Montana because of super bowl's, then that is completely wrong. I haven't looked at all of the posts, but has anybody posted their superbowl numbers???

Brady: 6 SBs, 164 of 247 (66.4%), 1605 yds, 13:4 td:int, 95.3 rating, 0 rushing td.

Montana 4 SBs, 83 of 122 (68%), 1142 yds, 11:0 td:int, 127.8 rating, 2 rushing td.

Brady: 267.5 yd/game, 2.16:.67 total td:int.
Montana: 285.5 yd/game, 3.25:0 total td:int.

Brady: 4 wins, 6 Superbowls, 3 MVPs
Montana: 4 wins, 4 Superbowls, 3 MVPs

Not even close.

Winning a Super Bowl isn't a one game endeavor, so no, we aren't making a comparison between the two players based on four games of their careers. Obviously those four games are important and they can be part of the discussion, but winning a Super Bowl is a year-long effort, not one game. When we say "this player is great because they won X number of Super Bowls" we aren't saying they are great because they won X number of individual games, but because they navigated the NFL season and came out on top X number of times.

Montana was great and he is one of my favorite players of all time, so I am not going to sit here and denigrate anything he did. But I just think using four individual games to decide who had a better career without taking anything else into account is a little absurd.

 

[NDRock]

Comparing stats between the 80s and now is pointless. Completely different games.

Agree, Brady is the best of his "generation" just like Montana was for his. As was Johnny U, Otto Graham, etc... All great players

 

[Rhode Irish]

Brady didn't take over the game last night or put the team on his back.

LOLWUT

Guy plays the greatest 4th quarter in the history of football and didn't put the team on his back?

 

[military_irish]

The only company Montana has is if he has a dinner party at his house.

 

[BobD]

Is it not enough to say they're both great and who you favor as the greatest is personal opinion? Different players, different decades, different rules even......

Lol, Montana's uniforms were so loose....looks like a little kid in PJs compared to today's uni's.

 

[Irish#1]

Of course Brady's the better quarterback...Joe's 58 years old.

reps

 

[GoldenDome]

LOLWUT

Guy plays the greatest 4th quarter in the history of football and didn't put the team on his back?

He only had 4 TDs though.

 

[BGIF]

Of course Brady's the better quarterback...Joe's 58 years old.

Joe's throwing nothing but Skechers these days.

 

[L-cart ND-ana]

I think people put too much stock in rings and QB greatness. Sure I think its something to look at but its an over rated variable in the discussion. If you said player X has a better career and pointed to rings but I think better career and Greatest of ALL TIME are two different things.

Picking the Greatest of All Time of anything is trickier than just saying numbers and rings are better. Peyton Manning v Tom Brady for example. Peyton Manning is proabbly the best regaular season QB statistically of all time. Tom Brady has the advantage in head to head and Rings v Manning. If we had a magic ball and had Tom Brady play against New Englands Defense and had Peyton Manning play against the Colts defenses in those games who has the head to head better record and who advances and wins more super bowls?

Also lets ask the question... what if the Patriots had anyone else besides Tom Brady in that system? Since we are talking about Greatest of ALL TIME we can plug in Joe Montana or Peyton Manning or even John Elway.... Dan Marino? Put any of those guys in Tom Brady's shoes, could any of those guys do any better than Tom? Plug any guy in any situation. If Dan Marino had Jerry Rice? If Peyton Manning had a top 10 defense every year. Tom Brady has a won a super bowl with the 1,2,6, and 8 top scoring defenses in the league.

I dont have an answer, just stiring the pot.

 

[NDRock]

Picking the Greatest of All Time of anything is trickier than just saying numbers and rings are better. Peyton Manning v Tom Brady for example. Peyton Manning is proabbly the best regaular season QB statistically of all time. Tom Brady has the advantage in head to head and Rings v Manning. If we had a magic ball and had Tom Brady play against New Englands Defense and had Peyton Manning play against the Colts defenses in those games who has the head to head better record and who advances and wins more super bowls?

I dont have an answer, just stiring the pot.

Some good points. One thing I'll say for Brady is that he has consistently signed contracts for millions less than Manning. In the salary cap era, having an extra 5 million or so to use on the defensive side of the ball (for example) can go a long way.

 

[Irish#1]

Some good points. One thing I'll say for Brady is that he has consistently signed contracts for millions less than Manning. In the salary cap era, having an extra 5 million or so to use on the defensive side of the ball (for example) can go a long way.

This is what Manning did with his extra money.

 

[MartyIrish]

I said before with some friends that if Brady wins another, he's the GOAT (as painful as that is to admit)

He not only has the rings, he's the most successful post season QB of all time (when it matters most) and he also is a guy who can sling it and throw for big numbers. He's the perfect combo.

Wins and numbers. I could post his numbers and records, but we've all seen them.

As an ND fan, Montana will always be my guy....but Brady is, in my mind, the greatest QB to play the game.

 

[MartyIrish]

Oh, and while I love Manning, he's not on Montana or Brady's level. Doesn't have the postseason success. That is what leaves him outta the top 2. Brady clearly has the edge over Peyton.

 

[phgreek]

I disagree. We are talking about who the best QB is, not the best team. Montana performed flawlessly in all of his Super Bowl victories. Brady has not. Hell, he threw two picks last night and they still gave him the MVP (Mostly because no one else took the game over).

Brady didn't take over the game last night or put the team on his back. They won despite him throwing two costly picks. Montana turned it on in all of his Super Bowls. You are comparing team accomplishments with personal accomplishments. The Patriots put Tom Brady in more Super Bowl appearances and that's what allowed him to match some of Joe's numbers. Give Joe two more appearances and he would have probably won two more rings and another MVP.

NICE! Pitching my tent in this camp.

I have to acknowledge Brady won with guys of lesser talent at the WR spots. But its hard to make the argument that Montana wouldn't have if all else was equal...like PI calls and QB hits etc. Since Montana's day, its hard to argue the fact that the league has become more pass friendly. It is not the same experience, so how do you really compare? What we know is, when Joe stepped onto the field, when it all mattered, he was damned near perfect...Thats my QB.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I think Brady is as close to Montana as we've since since Joe hung up his cleats. That's the best compliment I could possibly give a QB.

 

[Who'saWildManNow]

Brady wins despite being able to throw the deep ball.. Think about that.

He seriously has an issue throwing deep and he's arguably the greatest QB ever..

 

[irishfan]

The best argument for Montana is that he was flawless in the Super Bowl, throwing 0 INTs.

However, his career TD/INT ratio compared to Brady's is brutal. He threw 273 TDs and 139 INTs. Brady has thrown 392 TDs and 143 INTs.

It's tough to compare the two. I like Brady>Montana cause Brady has seemingly had barely any difference makers around him to throw to. He had Moss for 2+ years and then obviously now has Gronk. Welker was great while he was here, but was very average before he came to New England and after. I've seen him time and time again drag a team far in the playoffs that has no weapons. He's made the AFC Champ game 9 of 13 times in his career. That is simply incredible. He spent all of last year throwing to Edelman, Amendola, and 3 rookies WRs who aren't even on the active roster any more, and he still brought them to 12-4 and the AFC Champ game. When Brady wins his 5th (and he will sooner rather than later), any debate will 100% be over.

 

[NDWorld247]

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but I was listening to Boston sports radio yesterday and they were talking about how ridiculous it is that Malcolm Butler's play would factor so much into discussing Brady as the GOAT QB or not. Essentially, if the Pats D stops Seattle, Brady is GOAT (or in the running) but if the Seahawks score and win, he's not as good as Montana. He was on the freaking bench for the play!!

Championships are important, but they can't be the deciding factor in all-time QB rankings. It's too much of a team game for the QB to be judged by that.

I also don't like the "GOAT" discussions because it's very, very difficult to judge players from different eras for so many reasons. I'd love to hear who everyone thinks is the best at each position in each decade. Maybe worthy of its own thread if people are interested.