Photo courtesy of Korye Logan's Flickr page - 11. Joe Montana: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrloggy/5176199483/in/photolist-8TpnLF-eJGt9r-eR75Jo-deZHNV-hguimd-gZKwmg-4Qr9i-gZJucv-9o5Vn-gZJybm-ic11Xz-cDc8Nd-bu26ht-7LjirG-bu2PTp-bu1mZv-bu1GEH-bRPwHP-bu1ePi-bu1ny6-byLdpY-bCUMYA-bu1mhX-cDc8Lb-gZKuGe-gZKxXH-gZKtbZ-4oqrRy-bu1My4-98UsvD-ejgLbF-gZJuYS-ejnoVY-gZJvzS-ejgP34-gZJAbU-dCxf37-bu1eoH-bu1Nv6-bRPuFM-bu1T8k-bu1SEt-bu1LYn-bu1SoB-bu1m8a-bu1kMx-bCUMdC-bu1FKi-bMD1sH-ijSiF
Creative Commons License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
Photo courtesy of Jeffrey Beall's Flick page - Tom Brady: https://www.flickr.com/photos/denverjeffrey/6566852021/in/photolist-b1hQjz-6TGQLf-6TCNjt-6TCQrP-ihYLBr-6TGXaY-91St2X-6TDcjM-6TD38p-quibTs-6THKxb-hGKoPh-gQnQcg-96MbC5-8B3HqL-rgz3YD-qz5ZLN-hGKoHf-qvEoAs-7owYgn-fMLkYm-6TCSWz-nV7bPa-hGJxK6-7oARWy-5xv7E5-qLF6bB-biYQPX-6TCSbe-gNTTwc-gNTYva-gNSie6-6TCHwa-6TCyUV-bh4Lxt-6TDfuD-6THpgu-6TCDMV-6TGXxA-6TD1CM-6TCUtk-gnh4wB-6TD6SD-aEwQeH-6TCK44-6TGXnQ-6THdRE-6THzA5-ihZDW8-6THiE5
Creative Commons License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
Photo courtesy of Jeffrey Beall's Flick page - Tom Brady: https://www.flickr.com/photos/denverjeffrey/6566852021/in/photolist-b1hQjz-6TGQLf-6TCNjt-6TCQrP-ihYLBr-6TGXaY-91St2X-6TDcjM-6TD38p-quibTs-6THKxb-hGKoPh-gQnQcg-96MbC5-8B3HqL-rgz3YD-qz5ZLN-hGKoHf-qvEoAs-7owYgn-fMLkYm-6TCSWz-nV7bPa-hGJxK6-7oARWy-5xv7E5-qLF6bB-biYQPX-6TCSbe-gNTTwc-gNTYva-gNSie6-6TCHwa-6TCyUV-bh4Lxt-6TDfuD-6THpgu-6TCDMV-6TGXxA-6TD1CM-6TCUtk-gnh4wB-6TD6SD-aEwQeH-6TCK44-6TGXnQ-6THdRE-6THzA5-ihZDW8-6THiE5
Creative Commons License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
Super Bowl LIII AFC Champs
New England Patriots
A few years ago, while Tom Brady was pursuing his fourth, and then his fifth, and then his sixth Super Bowl rings, the debate about whether he was the "Greatest of All Time," or GOAT, was all the rage. The man who most often was seen as the other possibility in that regard was, not surprisingly, Joe Montana.
And why not? Montana managed to greatly outshine some other incredibly great quarterbacks in his era, including Dan Marino, John Elway, and Warren Moon. Of course, Brady has similarly impressive credentials, managing overall to outshine the likes of Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, Drew Brees, and Aaron Rodgers, among others.
Bill Bender wrote an article with the comparison, although it should be noted that this was literally published the day after Brady's Patriots beat the Seahawks in the Super Bow, and thus well before Brady staged that incredible comeback from down 28-3 to win the Super Bowl, which stands as easily the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history. It was also before last year's Super Bowl, and obviously, this coming Super Bowl, as well. Because Brady just keeps getting there, and adding to his legacy, win or lose. Making it to three consecutive Super Bowls, which is something only three franchises have managed to do - all from the AFC East, interestingly enough - is yet another distinction that Brady has added to his legacy.
Bender writes:
"Brady played in six Super Bowls, while Montana only played in four. That’s a fair counterpoint, but consider Montana had only one flagrant playoff loss against Minnesota in 1987. He was being chased around by the Lawrence Taylor-led Giants and the “46” Chicago Bears. Montana lost to the Giants three times in the playoffs, but he never lost to the Bears. If not for New York, then Montana might have played in eight Super Bowls. He also led Kansas City to an AFC championship game against Buffalo, which put an end to that whole “system quarterback” argument."
Here we go with the "if's."
True. But Montana lost, and lost badly, in that AFC title game at Buffalo. He threw no touchdowns and one INT, and was knocked out of the game, a game in which he was largely ineffectual. I would be willing to bet that Bender would not argue the success of any other non-system quarterback who did not bring his team to the Super Bowl.
Montana might have been played in eight Super Bowls had the New York Giants not been around, perhaps. But the Giants knocked Montana's 49ers out of the playoffs three times, and one of those times, they did not even make it to the Super Bowl, losing to that legendary 1985 Chicago Bears squad. Sorry, but I have a hard time believing that the 49ers team that lost 17-3 against the Giants team that lost 21-0 at Chicago would somehow have enjoyed so much more success against the Bears as to actually win. Nor would it be automatic that the 49ers would have beaten Washington in 1986. And as for the playoff losses, Montana suffered a few. Not as many as Brady, but Brady also played in a whole lot more playoff games than Montana, as well. But Montana lost to other teams than the Giants. He and the 49ers lost to Washington in 1983, and to Minnesota in 1987, and he lost to the Buffalo Bills in 1993 and the Miami Dolphins in 1004 as QB for KC.
Bender states, perhaps correctly for the time that he wrote it, that Montana had, hands down, the best signature moments.
"Brady has better playoff stats, but Montana has the better moment.
"That might be the tie-breaker. What is Brady’s signature Super Bowl moment? Spygate or Deflategate? Two game-winning field-goal drives or two fourth-quarter drives Eli Manning and Wilson answered? Manning finished his. If Pete Carroll gives the ball to Marshawn Lynch, then ...
"Montana finished his own sentences, none moreso than the game-winning drive against the Bengals in Super Bowl XXIII. It’s why “Look, it’s John Candy” is still a thing. It’s why Joe Cool is still the ultimate quarterback icon. It's why the 10-yard touchdown pass to John Taylor is still the single greatest moment in Super Bowl history."
Again with the "ifs." If Marshawn Lynch had gotten the ball, then surely the Patriots lose that Super Bowl. Except that Lynch had not gotten many 1-yard touchdowns that season on several attempts, and the Patriots would have clearly defended it with everything that they had. And most importantly, that is not what happened. Period. Tom Brady led his team from a 10-point, fourth quarter deficit, and New England's defense did just what they had to do, when they had to do it, to preserve the win and make that comeback performance stand.
And now, as far as signature moments are concerned, I think that Brady's other major Super Bowl comeback moment, the one in which he led the Patriots from a 28-3 deficit to win, is every bit as memorable as Montana's great moments. Of course, Bender did not have the advantage of seeing that when he wrote his article, but that only argues in favor of not trying to put the exclamation point in favor of Montana over such a storied career as Brady has had, and which clearly was (and still is) not yet finished.
Bill Bender argues, in his article ( see link below):
"Everybody knows the basics. Montana played in four Super Bowls, won three MVPs and threw 11 TDs with no interceptions. If the Seahawks beat the Patriots, then we’re talking about Brady’s two costly interceptions in Super Bowl XLIX."
Again with the "ifs."
True. If the Seahawks had won, we would indeed be talking about Brady's two interceptions. But since the Patriots won, we are instead talking about his four touchdown passes against the league's premiere defense of that era, the legendary "Legion of Boom" defense that deflated in that game. Brady threw two of those touchdown passes in the fourth quarter, which the Patriots entered trailing by 10 points. And, for that matter, who could forget Brady orchestrating the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history (by far), and one of the greatest comebacks in NFL history, period, as he led the Patriots from a 28-3 deficit to ultimately win his record fifth Super Bowl title?
Also, if Lewis Billups does not drop that sure interception right at the end of Super Bowl XXIII, we would be talking about how Montana had uncharacteristically cost his team the game. Instead, Billups dropped that sure interception, just as Assante Samuel dropped what seemed like a sure interception that would have iced a victory for the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII, which would have completed their perfect season and immortalized that team forever as "The greatest team in history." Plus, if we are talking about things that happened by chance, can we dismiss that luck would have been a part of the Seahawks victory, given that improbably miracle catch by Jermaine Kearse that probably should not have been, but which put the Seahawks in a position to win right at the end of the game in the first place? So, my point here is, let's remove the "If's," because you just do not know how each legacy would have been altered. In an alternative universe, maybe Billups makes that interception, and the Bengals win. Maybe Samuels makes that interception, and the Patriots complete that perfect season in 2007. Maybe Carroll chooses a different call, and not to throw in a dangerous, high traffic area with a chance for back-to-back championships on the line, and maybe Lynch does march in for that game-winning touchdown, and the Seahawks win.
Now, "if" we are going to talk about "what if" possibilities of alternative endings in the past, why not keep going? What if Dwight Clark does not make that improbable grab, and the Cowboys hang on and advance to Super Bowl XVI, instead of Montana's 49ers? What if Scott Norwood's field goal goes just a little bit more to the left, and the Bills win that first Super Bowl? What if Mike Jones does not stop Kevin Dyson before he manages to cross the plain of the end zone to tie the game and force overtime in Super Bowl XXXIV? What if Adam Vianiateri misses those key field goals right at the end of both Super Bowls that he won for the Patriots? What if the Falcons did not make every mistake imaginable, or at the very least, if they simply get a field goal after that great catch by Julio Jones put them in position to do so and they finally ice the game? What if Nick Foles drops that touchdown catch in last year's Super Bowl?
My point is, there are a lot of what if's to go around. But if we are arguing about what actually happened, then the simple fact of that matter is that Brady has won far more playoff games, and reached and won far more Conference Championship Games, and thus has qualified for and played in far more Super Bowls, than Montana ever could. The people who argue that Montana is better are basically saying that because Montana and the 49ers got eliminated earlier than the Patriots generally did during their eras of greatness, that the Montana and the 49ers should receive special status, because they played almost flawlessly in the fewer Super Bowls that they did manage to qualify for. On the face of it, it is absurd, and yet, it is interesting to see that the argument can be gripping. Having lived through both dynasties, I have to admit that part of me remembers Montana to Clark for the dramatic win in the 1981 NFC Championship Game (which Brady was at, by the way), and then I remember Montana to Taylor for the dramatic win in Super Bowl XXIII, and it becomes hard to dismiss this idea - a crazy idea, when you think logically - that Montana actually should come out ahead in comparisons.
Imagine if people paid as much attention to the Conference Championship Games. While Montana was playing at quarterback in San Francisco and Kansas City, he played in seven of these games, and compiled a 4-3 record in them. He got physically knocked out of two of them (against the Giants in 1990, and against the Bills in 1993). Brady, meanwhile, played in 13 Conference Championship Games, compiling a 9-4 record in those games. he got physically knocked out in the first one, but played the rest of them fully. In his last Championship Game with the Chiefs at Buffalo, Montana completed a rather dismal 9 of 23 passes for 125 yards, with no touchdowns and one interception. In 1984 against the Bears, a game which the 49ers won, Montana threw one touchdown and two INT's. He threw three touchdowns and one INT in the 1983 NFC Championship against Washington. And against Dallas in 1981, even though people only remember "The Catch," Montana threw three touchdowns, but also threw three interceptions. Now, reaching seven Conference Championships is very good, and far better than most. However, he did not play flawlessly in them, period. Add those numbers up, and he threw seven INT's in those games, some of which were costly to his team's chances to win. Everybody who claims that Montana was better points to Brady's INT's, but Brady was far better at helping his team to actually reach the big game than Montana was, clearly, because Brady was 9-4 in Conference Championships (so far), and Montana was 4-3. In other words, Brady has an amazing record, having won more than twice the number of those games than he lost, while Montana barely gets over the .500 mark.
But the Conference Championship Games are not remembered as well as Super Bowls, obviously, with the possible exception of the 1981 NFC Championship Game, which began Montana's legacy and the 49ers dynasty. Still, clearly, if we compare the two, Brady comes out as the better overall quarterback, the one who succeeded far more in getting his team to go farther, than Montana managed to do. It really is not even close. After all, New England is only the third team in NFL history to reach three straight Super Bowls, and they are the first team in league history to reach eight straight Conference Championship Games (and he has won six of those).
Overall, in the playoffs, Brady will be playing in his 40th postseason game, also far and away more than any other quarterback. Going into Super Bowl LIII, he has compiled a 29-10 record in those games, completing 984 of 1,554 passes for a rather stunning 10,917 yards, with 73 touchdowns to just 33 interceptions. Obviously, he is not yet done, but those statistics are better than any other quarterback has ever seen or come close to. Brady beat many of the best teams of his time, including some of the best defenses, which includes the Seahawks and the Ravens.
Montana played in 23 games in his illustrious career, which really is not bad at all. He compiled an overall 16-7 record in those games, which also is very good, and stood out (and still does) as one of the most exceptional such records of any quarterback to play the game. He completed 460 of 734 for 5,772 yards and 45 touchdowns, and 21 interceptions in his overall playoff appearances. Montana beat many of the best teams of his time, including some of the best defenses in the history of the game, including Washington, Chicago, Dallas, and the N.Y. Giants.
You could certainly make an argument - a valid one - that Montana played in an era that was not as friendly to quarterbacks, and which favored defenses. That much is true. But Brady has thrived like no other quarterback has, and this is the supposed era of quarterbacks. He has, at least at key times, outshined the likes of every other elite quarterback in terms of his overall success. His biggest rival, Peyton Manning, cannot claim to have enjoyed anywhere near the same level of postseason success. Neither can Brett Favre, Aaron Rodgers, or Drew Brees. In an age that favors quarterbacks, to have outshined all of those other elite quarterbacks, who only combined have won as many Super Bowls as Brady alone has, and have played in fewer overall Super Bowls combined than Brady has, that is saying something. Brady has earned three NFL MVP honors, and been Super Bowl MVP four times.
There are plenty of people outside of Bender who still argue in favor of Montana over Brady. Montana played against some of the best and most defenses in history, such as the games against Chicago in the mid-eighties. He played against the Giants in that same era, and through the early nineties. Ditto with Washington. But he also lost to those best of the best defenses. The 1985 Chicago Bears - one of the very best defenses, and overall teams, in history - soundly beat Montana's 49ers, 26-10, in San Francisco. The 1986 New York Giants beat Montana's Niners twice, crushing them, 49-3, in the playoffs. They had also knocked the 49ers out the year prior, 17-3. Montana beat Washington's defense in 1990, 28-10, but lost the best week in the NFC title game to New York, 15-13. He never played Washington in 1991, when their defense really reached it's zenith.
Brady did not play in an era when defenses had open season on quarterbacks, like they did back in the eighties and, to a certain extent, in the early nineties, when Montana played the game. But Brady did have to compete against some of the league's toughest defenses, with games against the Ravens, the Jets (who had a really tough, physical defense for a few years, and who actually knocked Brady and the Patriots out of the 2010-11 playoffs), and the Seahawks, to name a few. Overall, Brady fared pretty well.
The flip side is that the Patriots, under Brady, had to shine brighter than other elite quarterbacks and explosive offenses. Montana had some other elite quarterbacks and explosive offenses to shine brighter than. That includes, but is not limited to, Marino's Dolphins, Boomer's Bengals, and Elway's Broncos, all in the Super Bowl. But Brady beat Manning's Colts, Rivers' Chargers, Luck's Colts, and, in the big game, he shined brighter than Kurt Warner's "Greatest Show on Turf" Rams offense, as well as Ryan's explosive Falcons offense. Brady and his Patriots have won grinding, defensive games, but they have also won in shootouts, and done both fairly consistently.
Montana also enjoyed more postseason success than some of the all-time greats that played during his era, particularly John Elway and Dan Marino, both of whom he defeated in Super Bowls, and neither of which had won a single Super Bowl by the time that Montana retired from the game. Montana was NFL MVP in 1988 and again in 1989, and he earned three Super Bowl MVP honors.
All of these are great numbers that almost put all other quarterbacks to shame. But when you add them altogether, they clearly favor one quarterback, and his name is not Montana.
Don't get me wrong: I get why people feel that Montana still should be ranked as the greatest quarterback. I grew up in the 1980's, and in an age of all-time great quarterbacks, he was the best of them. Plus, he was likable, and this coming from a guy who did not like - and still does not like - the San Francisco 49ers.
However, some people were making the same kind of disparaging remarks about great players then as they are now, suggesting that today's players were pampered, and were not as tough as NFL players just a few short decades ago, in the 1950's and 1960's. I remember hearing those arguments back then, and rolling my eyes, and they have not aged too well, either. Only now, it's being employed by people my age, who remember the same era that I watched, instead of what felt like an era of grainy black and white photos and film clips.
Listen, Montana could be a magician on the field at times. I already mentioned "The Catch" and the drive the winning touchdown drive that Montana orchestrated to win Super Bowl XXIII, and the John Candy comment that illustrated just how relaxed and in control "Joe Cool" really was. And I remember others such moments, as well. As a Giants fan, it is still a bit painful to recall the 1988 loss to the 49ers, when the Giants had seemed to finally get that winning touchdown to beat the 49ers with under two minutes left, only to see Montana connect with Rice in a long bomb throw to pull off a miracle. And there were times when he did not need the last-minute theatrics, when he simply put on a clinic, such as when the supposedly finesse Niners crushed the Bears in the 1988-89 NFC title game, or throughout the 1989-90 playoffs, particularly in the Super Bowl, as he sliced the supposedly elite Broncos defense apart.
There were undeniably moments like that, when I was convinced - as many, many others were - that this has to be the greatest quarterback of all-time. Part of me still feels that way.
However, I also understand that numbers don't lie. And no, I am not referring to statistics of who was the better passer, who completed more passes, or was statistically better. After all, Steve Young had better such numbers than Montana, but nobody puts him forth in GOAT arguments. Why? Because he only won one title while in SF. Montana was four. So, people understandably remember Montana as the preeminent quarterback back then, not just for the 49ers, but in the NFL, more generally.
But using such rationale, how can you dismiss Brady? I mean, part of it is the likability factor, because a lot of people not only do not particularly like Brady, but they outright hate him. Most people - especially the haters - seem happy to see him lose, to see him stumble.
Now, I am not one of those guys who loathes Tom Brady. I do not buy into all these arguments that he and Bill Belichick are the "Evil Empire" of the NFL. In fact, objectively, they are handling their success quite well. Some others would be in your face constantly about it, flaunting their success, like Michael Irving did, saying that he had spent the off-season following his first Super Bowl win polishing his ring, and then laughing obnoxiously before the camera. Brady and Belichick generally handle themselves better than that.
Whether or not people will concede that point, I nevertheless understand why people feel that Brady is full of himself. He is not only in the public eye, but seems to embrace and even relish that role, far more than Montana ever did. I cannot recall Montana getting dressed up and going out in some high profile places in New York City to basically be seen, like Brady does. Montana did not marry a Brazilian supermodel. Montana did not make a point of charging people the maximum amount possible for autographs, and Montana never showed off a MAGA hat, which are all things that Brady has done.
Perhaps that is it. Or, perhaps, it is more than that. I think that part of it is that a whole generation of people my age watched football while adults, and not as kids. The magic that you feel just is not the same when you are all grown up. Seriously! I remember wondering what it would be like if the Giants won the Super Bowl while I was an adult. Would it be as magical, and make me as happy, is it did when I was younger, and their championships kept me happy for weeks, if not months, later? Even now, I get a bit of a glow thinking about them, especially the 1990-91 Giants. But when the Giants won the Super Bowl, not once, but twice, while I was an adult, my questions were answered. During the game itself, I could really get into it, but not be as completely absorbed by it as when I was younger. And the joy when they won was not the same, either. I was happy after they beat the Patriots. But then I went to bed, because I had to work the next day. When I woke up, I uncharacteristically listened to sports radio, but still got stressed out with the slow-moving traffic. But there were bills to pay, and responsibilities, and I just could not lose myself with the same abandon that I had when the Giants had won as a kid. It did not feel as magical, because adulthood had intervened, and probably detracted from the sheer joy that I once had when my team won the championship.
My guess is that this is how many people my age also now feel, perhaps without realizing it. They detract from Brady when he wins, and grumble about how Montana was better, but they also probably grumble about how the game was more magical, more fun, when they were younger. Especially the macho guys who relish in how much more physical the game was back then (and it was). But here's the thing: younger people who do not remember Montana all seem convinced that Brady is the GOAT. For them, it is easier to get lost in the magic and fun that sports can bring to people, and they have never seen anybody like Brady before. They hear that Montana won four Super Bowls in four tries, and they understandably think: "But Brady's won five Super Bowl rings!"
And they are right. Brady has. People might try to minimize his accomplishments, or those of the New England Patriots more generally. I can relate, because I felt the same way about the San Francisco 49ers decades ago. Fact of the matter is, these teams did all that they could, and all that they had to do, to enjoy the level of success that they have enjoyed. You can bring up "Spygate" or "Deflategate," but most experts will tell you that the only difference between the Patriots and other teams in that regard is that the Patriots got caught. And why did they get caught Because they have a higher profile, which is because they are winning better and more regularly than any other franchises out there. Whatever arguments people bring to detract from the accomplishment of Brady and the Patriots has a counterargument, and not just with "Spygate" or "Deflategate." When people say that Montana endured and thrived in a more physical era, it should be remembered that he suffered numerous injuries that sidelined him for parts, or often even entire, games. Hell, he missed the entirety of the 1991 season, and lost his starting position with the 49ers as a result. He got knocked out of the 1986 divisional game with the Giants, the 1990 NFC Championship with the Giants, and the 1993 AFC Championship with the Bills. Brady also got knocked out in the 2001 AFC Championship, but he also played Super Bowl XLII while injured, even though he lost. You cannot claim that he has not taken hits, because he has. But he has endured, now well past the age of 40. He argues that he is better now than he was years ago, and it is hard to argue the point. It is hard to argue with success.
Maybe you can argue that teams were better back then. More physical, and more loaded with talent. Perhaps, but I am not entirely sure that is even all that true. Pro sports is a big business, and it attracts more serious approaches, with athletes who have every means at their disposal to optimize their performance. Plus, the argument of watered down teams suggests that there is less talent, because if every team is watered down, than where did all of the talent go, exactly? Also, if this is a different era designed for greater parity between teams, does that not speak volumes about how successful Tom Brady and the New England Patriots have managed to be during this era? Would Montana and the 49ers have survived as long, or as strong, if they kept losing top talent to free agency, which the Patriots had to do? Because even if the argument that teams are more watered down than in the past is true, does that not speak volumes about how well the Patriots have done in such an era, and how the one constant: Brady's leadership and undeniable greatness, have contributed to New England weathering this obviously huge storm?
Fact of the matter is, whatever the challenges, whatever the storms have brought, Brady and the Patriots have weathered it. Maybe Brady's "moments" did not seem as magical to guys my age as Montana's "moments" did. But to kids who watched him win three Super Bowls in four years well over a decade ago, or for kids who watched him lead his team from a 10-point, 4th quarter deficit against the best defense, and in the biggest possible game, to win, and then to follow that up two years later by orchestrating a comeback from 28-3 down, Brady has had plenty of magical moments to spare. Maybe we are just too old to fully appreciate it. Or maybe all of these sports shows, on television or on radio, scrutinize every little thing, and basically help to take away from the sheer fun of watching these sports, and marveling at the accomplishments of truly gifted athletes.
So, finally, to sum up, the numbers that truly matter the most: the championships, don't lie. It does not matter what LeBron has done in terms of points or whatever other surface stats people measure. LeBron is not as great as Jordan, because he did not lift his team so high as to make them virtually unbeatable, the way that Jordan did. But in the case of Brady and Montana, it is a role reversal. Brady has gotten his team to more Super Bowls, and won more Super Bowls, than Montana ever did, or could. Sorry, but that is what history will remember.
I agree with most people about the likability issue. Given a choice, I would prefer having a night out with Montana over Brady any day. He seems more likable, more personal, more down to earth and less full of himself. I could not stand the 49ers, and yet even I had a Montana jersey, and still have it (don't ask if I still fit in it, though).
However, if I am somehow in the position to make a decision about which quarterback to take and make my franchise quarterback, knowing what I know now? Hands down, it would be Brady. Again, the numbers don't lie, and I am talking about the number of championship rings that he led his team to.
Here is the article that I wrote some years ago, when also comparing Montana and Brady in the lead-up to another of Brady's earlier Super Bowls:
A couple of years ago, I wrote a blog entry about the debate that was then heating up, questioning who was the greatest quarterback of all time, Tom Brady or Joe Montana.
Now, in the light of the most unbelievable Super Bowl ever, this debate has heated up once again, and more people than ever before seem to be coming around to view Tom Brady as the greatest quarterback ever, or the Greatest Of All Time (GOAT).
So, in response to yet another unbelievable game and championship comeback - the most dramatic one yet! - it seemed like a good idea to enter this debate again myself here, as well as to republish that original blog entry from a couple of years ago.
Here's the argument that Montana fans are making to defend their position: Joe Montana is untouchable when it comes to the Super Bowl. Nobody handled the intensity and the enormity of the game better, especially in the clutch.
Now, here are the facts, when it comes to Super Bowls. Tom Brady has played in seven of them, and compiled a record of 5-2. Montana played in four of them, compiling a record of 4-0. Brady threw 15 touchdowns, with five interceptions in those games, while Montana threw an incredible 11 touchdowns with zero interceptions. Brady completed 67 percent of his passes in an era that was more friendly to quarterbacks, while Montana completed 68 percent of his passes in the biggest game. Tom Brady's overall quarterback rating in those Super Bowl appearances was 95.3, while Montana's cumulative rating was an off the charts 127.8. And some will point out that the Patriots won their five Super Bowl under Brady by a total margin of 19 points, not including the 7 points you would have to subtract if you include the two losses to the Giants. These critics will point out that Montana's 49ers won their four Super Bowls by a total combined margin of 76 points.
If you look at those statistics, then Montana's Super Bowl history indeed has some decisive advantages over that of Brady. I think it is fair to say that Montana was better on average in his Super Bowl appearances than Brady was in his. If you look at just the Super Bowls, you would have to say that Montana seemed to rise to the occasion in the Super Bowl particularly than Brady did.
That said, here are some counter arguments. The most obvious one is this: Brady won more Super Bowls. He just earned his fifth Super Bowl championship ring. In order to earn this, he orchestrated one of the greatest comeback victories in NFL history, and he did it in the biggest game, no less! He has shown incredible poise and leadership at those clutch moments when the game is riding on how he handles it, and he handled it well against the Rams, the Panthers, the Eagles, the Seahawks, and the Falcons.
So, the Super Bowl argument could go either way, really. The next important level would be playoffs, so let's take a look at how each man fared there. Brady played in 34 postseason games and won 25 of them (both records), throwing for 9,094 yards and 63 touchdowns, with 31 interceptions in the process (so far). Brady led his team in 10 game-winning drives in those games. Montana played in 23 postseason games, winning 16 of them, and he threw for 5,772 yards, with 45 touchdowns and 21 interceptions in those games. Brady's passer rating in the playoffs was 89.0, while Montana's was 956. Montana had five game-winning drives in the playoffs.
In the regular season, Brady boasts a record of 183-52, while Montana has a 117-47 record. Brady has thrown for 61,582 yards and 456 career touchdowns, with 152 interceptions. Montana has thrown for 40,551 yards and 273 touchdowns, with 139 interceptions. Brady's career completion percentage in the regular season is 63.8, while Montana's is 63.2. Brady's career passer rating in the regular season is 97.2, while Montana's is 92.3. Brady had 48 game-winning drives, while Montana had 33.
Now, let's look at what the teams accomplished while at the helm for their respective teams. Tom Brady has been on the Patriots since he was drafted in the sixth round of the 2000 draft, and became the starting quarterback for the Patriots in 2001, remaining the starter for every season with the exception of the 2008 season, when he was injured for the season in week one. Joe Montana was drafted by the 49ers in the third round of the 1979 draft, and became the starting quarterback for the San Francisco midway into the 1980 season. Brady led the Patriots to the playoffs 14 times, and they winning the division title during each of those playoff appearances. Montana led the 49ers to the playoffs nine times, with eight division titles, and he led the Chiefs to the playoffs twice, with one division title. Once in the playoffs, Brady's Patriots reached the divisional round of the playoffs 13 times. Montana reached at least the divisional round of the playoffs eight times with the 49ers, and once with Kansas City (he lost the Wildcard Game twice - once with San Francisco, and once with Kansas City). Brady was quarterback for 11 AFC title game appearances, compiling a 7-4 record in those games. Montana was quarterback for 6 NFC title games as well as an AFC title game with Kansas City, compiling a 4-3 record in those games. And, as already mentioned, Brady won five titles in seven Super Bowl appearances, while Montana won all four of his appearances.
Many people will argue that the 49ers faced better teams. Yes, this is true, but the 49ers also had better teams. Remember, they played before the age of the salary cap and free agency which has brought about greater parity than ever before. Montana had Jerry Rice, the greatest wide receiver of all time. They had John Taylor as their second best wide receiver, and that's a pretty damn solid set of wide receivers already! They also had guys like Brent Jones, Dwight Clark, and some other players who really stood out. They had Roger Craig and Tom Rathman. They had a serious offensive line protecting that backfield offensive talent, too! And, of course, let us not forget the underrated defense. They were underrated at the time, and most people seem to have forgotten just how tough and physical that defense was! They had Charles Haley, who is the only other player to have won five Super Bowl rings. They had Michael Carter, who won an Olympic silver medal. They had Ronnie Lott and Eric Young in the secondary. Indeed, that was an incredible team! San Francisco had a great team all around.
And while the Patriots did not compete against teams that were on the level that the 49ers had to face (think of the Giants, Washington, or Chicago, who were among the big bullies of the time that the 49ers had to get through to reach the Super Bowl), Tom Brady and the Patriots did face the best teams of their era. The whole dynasty began with an improbable Super Bowl run that ended with a victory over the juggernaut St. Louis Rams, who were on the verge of emerging as a dynasty themselves. That Rams team of the late 1990's and early 2000's is still considered one of the best offensive teams in NFL history, but their legacy was obviously compromised when they were prohibitive favorites against New England, but still lost. The Atlanta Falcons this year were on that caliber of offense, and once again, the New England Patriots managed to beat such a team on the biggest stage of all, and with that incredible comeback, to boot! Plus, the Pats beat the best defensive team (and probably best team of the era) in the Seattle Seahawks just two years ago. Granted, the Seahawks have dropped a couple of rungs down the ladder, but that may have been in large part due to what New England managed to do to them in that Super Bowl. They just never seemed quite the same since.
Also, let us not forget that this is the era of parity in the NFL, due to free agency and the salary cap. That means that it is difficult to retain the talent on a team, especially a good team. As a result, these Brady-era Patriots did not have the kind of talent around them that the Montana-era 49ers enjoyed. Certainly not consistently. There were some big names on the Patriots during some of those championships. Randy Moss was there for one of the Super Bowls, although that was the one where the undefeated Pats lost the Super Bowl.
Really, let's face it: there just is no way to know for sure. The two played in very different eras. They never faced each other, because Montana retired after the 1994 season, while Brady only entered the NFL in 2000, when the salary cap and free agency had changed the face of the league completely. Not only could those Montana-era San Francisco 49ers not face the Brady-era New England Patriots, but it would be different criteria. The only way that we could know for sure is if Montana was on these New England Patriots facing the obstacles of parity, and/or Brady was on those San Francisco 49ers teams with Jerry Rice and that talented 49ers team, while facing teams like the '85 Bears or the '86 and '90 New York Giants. Obviously, that is not going to happen.
To my mind's eye, most likely the best way to tell is based on championship success, and indeed, you can make an argument that Montana was a more clutch performer once in the Super Bowl than Brady is or has been. However, they are both great, and you cannot take away Brady's record five Super Bowl rings as quarterback.
I used the following article, as well as Pro Football Reference, for the statistics that I used above (see the links to both below):
Who Is the GOAT? Joe Montana Versus Tom Brady | NBC Bay Area by Brendan Webber, February 6, 2017:
Note: I originally published this piece a couple of years ago, before Tom Brady and the Patriots even beat the Seahawks in that Super Bowl stunner, which will forever be remembered for the 2nd and 1 that wound up being intercepted. Just thought it would be interesting to republish it, in the light of yet another Super Bowl triumph by Brady's Patriots, and in an even more shocking manner than that Seattle game two years ago.
The debate has raged these last few weeks like never before: will Tom Brady attain the same elite status as a quarterback as Joe Montana if the Patriots manage to win this Super Bowl?
Joe Montana wins every best-ever argument over Tom Brady by Bill Bender, February 2, 2015:
http://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/super-bowl-xlix-joe-montana-tom-brady-peyton-manning-debate-best-ever-quarterback-super-bowls-records/1u2wh4pjxgjtp18g146243eevf
40 mind-boggling Tom Brady playoff facts ahead of QB's 40th playoff game by Bill Bender, January, 2019:
The Greatest NFL Quarterbacks Of All Time
https://www.thedelite.com/greatest-nfl-quarterbacks-of-all-time/?lvl=opt2&stack=ssp&utm_source=yahoo-adrizer&utm_campaign=127901&utm_term=SPORTS_US_2~c&utm_content=adrizer
Bill Bender wrote an article with the comparison, although it should be noted that this was literally published the day after Brady's Patriots beat the Seahawks in the Super Bow, and thus well before Brady staged that incredible comeback from down 28-3 to win the Super Bowl, which stands as easily the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history. It was also before last year's Super Bowl, and obviously, this coming Super Bowl, as well. Because Brady just keeps getting there, and adding to his legacy, win or lose. Making it to three consecutive Super Bowls, which is something only three franchises have managed to do - all from the AFC East, interestingly enough - is yet another distinction that Brady has added to his legacy.
Bender writes:
"Brady played in six Super Bowls, while Montana only played in four. That’s a fair counterpoint, but consider Montana had only one flagrant playoff loss against Minnesota in 1987. He was being chased around by the Lawrence Taylor-led Giants and the “46” Chicago Bears. Montana lost to the Giants three times in the playoffs, but he never lost to the Bears. If not for New York, then Montana might have played in eight Super Bowls. He also led Kansas City to an AFC championship game against Buffalo, which put an end to that whole “system quarterback” argument."
Here we go with the "if's."
True. But Montana lost, and lost badly, in that AFC title game at Buffalo. He threw no touchdowns and one INT, and was knocked out of the game, a game in which he was largely ineffectual. I would be willing to bet that Bender would not argue the success of any other non-system quarterback who did not bring his team to the Super Bowl.
Montana might have been played in eight Super Bowls had the New York Giants not been around, perhaps. But the Giants knocked Montana's 49ers out of the playoffs three times, and one of those times, they did not even make it to the Super Bowl, losing to that legendary 1985 Chicago Bears squad. Sorry, but I have a hard time believing that the 49ers team that lost 17-3 against the Giants team that lost 21-0 at Chicago would somehow have enjoyed so much more success against the Bears as to actually win. Nor would it be automatic that the 49ers would have beaten Washington in 1986. And as for the playoff losses, Montana suffered a few. Not as many as Brady, but Brady also played in a whole lot more playoff games than Montana, as well. But Montana lost to other teams than the Giants. He and the 49ers lost to Washington in 1983, and to Minnesota in 1987, and he lost to the Buffalo Bills in 1993 and the Miami Dolphins in 1004 as QB for KC.
Bender states, perhaps correctly for the time that he wrote it, that Montana had, hands down, the best signature moments.
"Brady has better playoff stats, but Montana has the better moment.
"That might be the tie-breaker. What is Brady’s signature Super Bowl moment? Spygate or Deflategate? Two game-winning field-goal drives or two fourth-quarter drives Eli Manning and Wilson answered? Manning finished his. If Pete Carroll gives the ball to Marshawn Lynch, then ...
"Montana finished his own sentences, none moreso than the game-winning drive against the Bengals in Super Bowl XXIII. It’s why “Look, it’s John Candy” is still a thing. It’s why Joe Cool is still the ultimate quarterback icon. It's why the 10-yard touchdown pass to John Taylor is still the single greatest moment in Super Bowl history."
Again with the "ifs." If Marshawn Lynch had gotten the ball, then surely the Patriots lose that Super Bowl. Except that Lynch had not gotten many 1-yard touchdowns that season on several attempts, and the Patriots would have clearly defended it with everything that they had. And most importantly, that is not what happened. Period. Tom Brady led his team from a 10-point, fourth quarter deficit, and New England's defense did just what they had to do, when they had to do it, to preserve the win and make that comeback performance stand.
And now, as far as signature moments are concerned, I think that Brady's other major Super Bowl comeback moment, the one in which he led the Patriots from a 28-3 deficit to win, is every bit as memorable as Montana's great moments. Of course, Bender did not have the advantage of seeing that when he wrote his article, but that only argues in favor of not trying to put the exclamation point in favor of Montana over such a storied career as Brady has had, and which clearly was (and still is) not yet finished.
Bill Bender argues, in his article ( see link below):
"Everybody knows the basics. Montana played in four Super Bowls, won three MVPs and threw 11 TDs with no interceptions. If the Seahawks beat the Patriots, then we’re talking about Brady’s two costly interceptions in Super Bowl XLIX."
Again with the "ifs."
True. If the Seahawks had won, we would indeed be talking about Brady's two interceptions. But since the Patriots won, we are instead talking about his four touchdown passes against the league's premiere defense of that era, the legendary "Legion of Boom" defense that deflated in that game. Brady threw two of those touchdown passes in the fourth quarter, which the Patriots entered trailing by 10 points. And, for that matter, who could forget Brady orchestrating the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history (by far), and one of the greatest comebacks in NFL history, period, as he led the Patriots from a 28-3 deficit to ultimately win his record fifth Super Bowl title?
Also, if Lewis Billups does not drop that sure interception right at the end of Super Bowl XXIII, we would be talking about how Montana had uncharacteristically cost his team the game. Instead, Billups dropped that sure interception, just as Assante Samuel dropped what seemed like a sure interception that would have iced a victory for the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII, which would have completed their perfect season and immortalized that team forever as "The greatest team in history." Plus, if we are talking about things that happened by chance, can we dismiss that luck would have been a part of the Seahawks victory, given that improbably miracle catch by Jermaine Kearse that probably should not have been, but which put the Seahawks in a position to win right at the end of the game in the first place? So, my point here is, let's remove the "If's," because you just do not know how each legacy would have been altered. In an alternative universe, maybe Billups makes that interception, and the Bengals win. Maybe Samuels makes that interception, and the Patriots complete that perfect season in 2007. Maybe Carroll chooses a different call, and not to throw in a dangerous, high traffic area with a chance for back-to-back championships on the line, and maybe Lynch does march in for that game-winning touchdown, and the Seahawks win.
Now, "if" we are going to talk about "what if" possibilities of alternative endings in the past, why not keep going? What if Dwight Clark does not make that improbable grab, and the Cowboys hang on and advance to Super Bowl XVI, instead of Montana's 49ers? What if Scott Norwood's field goal goes just a little bit more to the left, and the Bills win that first Super Bowl? What if Mike Jones does not stop Kevin Dyson before he manages to cross the plain of the end zone to tie the game and force overtime in Super Bowl XXXIV? What if Adam Vianiateri misses those key field goals right at the end of both Super Bowls that he won for the Patriots? What if the Falcons did not make every mistake imaginable, or at the very least, if they simply get a field goal after that great catch by Julio Jones put them in position to do so and they finally ice the game? What if Nick Foles drops that touchdown catch in last year's Super Bowl?
My point is, there are a lot of what if's to go around. But if we are arguing about what actually happened, then the simple fact of that matter is that Brady has won far more playoff games, and reached and won far more Conference Championship Games, and thus has qualified for and played in far more Super Bowls, than Montana ever could. The people who argue that Montana is better are basically saying that because Montana and the 49ers got eliminated earlier than the Patriots generally did during their eras of greatness, that the Montana and the 49ers should receive special status, because they played almost flawlessly in the fewer Super Bowls that they did manage to qualify for. On the face of it, it is absurd, and yet, it is interesting to see that the argument can be gripping. Having lived through both dynasties, I have to admit that part of me remembers Montana to Clark for the dramatic win in the 1981 NFC Championship Game (which Brady was at, by the way), and then I remember Montana to Taylor for the dramatic win in Super Bowl XXIII, and it becomes hard to dismiss this idea - a crazy idea, when you think logically - that Montana actually should come out ahead in comparisons.
Imagine if people paid as much attention to the Conference Championship Games. While Montana was playing at quarterback in San Francisco and Kansas City, he played in seven of these games, and compiled a 4-3 record in them. He got physically knocked out of two of them (against the Giants in 1990, and against the Bills in 1993). Brady, meanwhile, played in 13 Conference Championship Games, compiling a 9-4 record in those games. he got physically knocked out in the first one, but played the rest of them fully. In his last Championship Game with the Chiefs at Buffalo, Montana completed a rather dismal 9 of 23 passes for 125 yards, with no touchdowns and one interception. In 1984 against the Bears, a game which the 49ers won, Montana threw one touchdown and two INT's. He threw three touchdowns and one INT in the 1983 NFC Championship against Washington. And against Dallas in 1981, even though people only remember "The Catch," Montana threw three touchdowns, but also threw three interceptions. Now, reaching seven Conference Championships is very good, and far better than most. However, he did not play flawlessly in them, period. Add those numbers up, and he threw seven INT's in those games, some of which were costly to his team's chances to win. Everybody who claims that Montana was better points to Brady's INT's, but Brady was far better at helping his team to actually reach the big game than Montana was, clearly, because Brady was 9-4 in Conference Championships (so far), and Montana was 4-3. In other words, Brady has an amazing record, having won more than twice the number of those games than he lost, while Montana barely gets over the .500 mark.
But the Conference Championship Games are not remembered as well as Super Bowls, obviously, with the possible exception of the 1981 NFC Championship Game, which began Montana's legacy and the 49ers dynasty. Still, clearly, if we compare the two, Brady comes out as the better overall quarterback, the one who succeeded far more in getting his team to go farther, than Montana managed to do. It really is not even close. After all, New England is only the third team in NFL history to reach three straight Super Bowls, and they are the first team in league history to reach eight straight Conference Championship Games (and he has won six of those).
Overall, in the playoffs, Brady will be playing in his 40th postseason game, also far and away more than any other quarterback. Going into Super Bowl LIII, he has compiled a 29-10 record in those games, completing 984 of 1,554 passes for a rather stunning 10,917 yards, with 73 touchdowns to just 33 interceptions. Obviously, he is not yet done, but those statistics are better than any other quarterback has ever seen or come close to. Brady beat many of the best teams of his time, including some of the best defenses, which includes the Seahawks and the Ravens.
Montana played in 23 games in his illustrious career, which really is not bad at all. He compiled an overall 16-7 record in those games, which also is very good, and stood out (and still does) as one of the most exceptional such records of any quarterback to play the game. He completed 460 of 734 for 5,772 yards and 45 touchdowns, and 21 interceptions in his overall playoff appearances. Montana beat many of the best teams of his time, including some of the best defenses in the history of the game, including Washington, Chicago, Dallas, and the N.Y. Giants.
You could certainly make an argument - a valid one - that Montana played in an era that was not as friendly to quarterbacks, and which favored defenses. That much is true. But Brady has thrived like no other quarterback has, and this is the supposed era of quarterbacks. He has, at least at key times, outshined the likes of every other elite quarterback in terms of his overall success. His biggest rival, Peyton Manning, cannot claim to have enjoyed anywhere near the same level of postseason success. Neither can Brett Favre, Aaron Rodgers, or Drew Brees. In an age that favors quarterbacks, to have outshined all of those other elite quarterbacks, who only combined have won as many Super Bowls as Brady alone has, and have played in fewer overall Super Bowls combined than Brady has, that is saying something. Brady has earned three NFL MVP honors, and been Super Bowl MVP four times.
There are plenty of people outside of Bender who still argue in favor of Montana over Brady. Montana played against some of the best and most defenses in history, such as the games against Chicago in the mid-eighties. He played against the Giants in that same era, and through the early nineties. Ditto with Washington. But he also lost to those best of the best defenses. The 1985 Chicago Bears - one of the very best defenses, and overall teams, in history - soundly beat Montana's 49ers, 26-10, in San Francisco. The 1986 New York Giants beat Montana's Niners twice, crushing them, 49-3, in the playoffs. They had also knocked the 49ers out the year prior, 17-3. Montana beat Washington's defense in 1990, 28-10, but lost the best week in the NFC title game to New York, 15-13. He never played Washington in 1991, when their defense really reached it's zenith.
Brady did not play in an era when defenses had open season on quarterbacks, like they did back in the eighties and, to a certain extent, in the early nineties, when Montana played the game. But Brady did have to compete against some of the league's toughest defenses, with games against the Ravens, the Jets (who had a really tough, physical defense for a few years, and who actually knocked Brady and the Patriots out of the 2010-11 playoffs), and the Seahawks, to name a few. Overall, Brady fared pretty well.
The flip side is that the Patriots, under Brady, had to shine brighter than other elite quarterbacks and explosive offenses. Montana had some other elite quarterbacks and explosive offenses to shine brighter than. That includes, but is not limited to, Marino's Dolphins, Boomer's Bengals, and Elway's Broncos, all in the Super Bowl. But Brady beat Manning's Colts, Rivers' Chargers, Luck's Colts, and, in the big game, he shined brighter than Kurt Warner's "Greatest Show on Turf" Rams offense, as well as Ryan's explosive Falcons offense. Brady and his Patriots have won grinding, defensive games, but they have also won in shootouts, and done both fairly consistently.
Montana also enjoyed more postseason success than some of the all-time greats that played during his era, particularly John Elway and Dan Marino, both of whom he defeated in Super Bowls, and neither of which had won a single Super Bowl by the time that Montana retired from the game. Montana was NFL MVP in 1988 and again in 1989, and he earned three Super Bowl MVP honors.
All of these are great numbers that almost put all other quarterbacks to shame. But when you add them altogether, they clearly favor one quarterback, and his name is not Montana.
Don't get me wrong: I get why people feel that Montana still should be ranked as the greatest quarterback. I grew up in the 1980's, and in an age of all-time great quarterbacks, he was the best of them. Plus, he was likable, and this coming from a guy who did not like - and still does not like - the San Francisco 49ers.
However, some people were making the same kind of disparaging remarks about great players then as they are now, suggesting that today's players were pampered, and were not as tough as NFL players just a few short decades ago, in the 1950's and 1960's. I remember hearing those arguments back then, and rolling my eyes, and they have not aged too well, either. Only now, it's being employed by people my age, who remember the same era that I watched, instead of what felt like an era of grainy black and white photos and film clips.
Listen, Montana could be a magician on the field at times. I already mentioned "The Catch" and the drive the winning touchdown drive that Montana orchestrated to win Super Bowl XXIII, and the John Candy comment that illustrated just how relaxed and in control "Joe Cool" really was. And I remember others such moments, as well. As a Giants fan, it is still a bit painful to recall the 1988 loss to the 49ers, when the Giants had seemed to finally get that winning touchdown to beat the 49ers with under two minutes left, only to see Montana connect with Rice in a long bomb throw to pull off a miracle. And there were times when he did not need the last-minute theatrics, when he simply put on a clinic, such as when the supposedly finesse Niners crushed the Bears in the 1988-89 NFC title game, or throughout the 1989-90 playoffs, particularly in the Super Bowl, as he sliced the supposedly elite Broncos defense apart.
There were undeniably moments like that, when I was convinced - as many, many others were - that this has to be the greatest quarterback of all-time. Part of me still feels that way.
However, I also understand that numbers don't lie. And no, I am not referring to statistics of who was the better passer, who completed more passes, or was statistically better. After all, Steve Young had better such numbers than Montana, but nobody puts him forth in GOAT arguments. Why? Because he only won one title while in SF. Montana was four. So, people understandably remember Montana as the preeminent quarterback back then, not just for the 49ers, but in the NFL, more generally.
But using such rationale, how can you dismiss Brady? I mean, part of it is the likability factor, because a lot of people not only do not particularly like Brady, but they outright hate him. Most people - especially the haters - seem happy to see him lose, to see him stumble.
Now, I am not one of those guys who loathes Tom Brady. I do not buy into all these arguments that he and Bill Belichick are the "Evil Empire" of the NFL. In fact, objectively, they are handling their success quite well. Some others would be in your face constantly about it, flaunting their success, like Michael Irving did, saying that he had spent the off-season following his first Super Bowl win polishing his ring, and then laughing obnoxiously before the camera. Brady and Belichick generally handle themselves better than that.
Whether or not people will concede that point, I nevertheless understand why people feel that Brady is full of himself. He is not only in the public eye, but seems to embrace and even relish that role, far more than Montana ever did. I cannot recall Montana getting dressed up and going out in some high profile places in New York City to basically be seen, like Brady does. Montana did not marry a Brazilian supermodel. Montana did not make a point of charging people the maximum amount possible for autographs, and Montana never showed off a MAGA hat, which are all things that Brady has done.
Perhaps that is it. Or, perhaps, it is more than that. I think that part of it is that a whole generation of people my age watched football while adults, and not as kids. The magic that you feel just is not the same when you are all grown up. Seriously! I remember wondering what it would be like if the Giants won the Super Bowl while I was an adult. Would it be as magical, and make me as happy, is it did when I was younger, and their championships kept me happy for weeks, if not months, later? Even now, I get a bit of a glow thinking about them, especially the 1990-91 Giants. But when the Giants won the Super Bowl, not once, but twice, while I was an adult, my questions were answered. During the game itself, I could really get into it, but not be as completely absorbed by it as when I was younger. And the joy when they won was not the same, either. I was happy after they beat the Patriots. But then I went to bed, because I had to work the next day. When I woke up, I uncharacteristically listened to sports radio, but still got stressed out with the slow-moving traffic. But there were bills to pay, and responsibilities, and I just could not lose myself with the same abandon that I had when the Giants had won as a kid. It did not feel as magical, because adulthood had intervened, and probably detracted from the sheer joy that I once had when my team won the championship.
My guess is that this is how many people my age also now feel, perhaps without realizing it. They detract from Brady when he wins, and grumble about how Montana was better, but they also probably grumble about how the game was more magical, more fun, when they were younger. Especially the macho guys who relish in how much more physical the game was back then (and it was). But here's the thing: younger people who do not remember Montana all seem convinced that Brady is the GOAT. For them, it is easier to get lost in the magic and fun that sports can bring to people, and they have never seen anybody like Brady before. They hear that Montana won four Super Bowls in four tries, and they understandably think: "But Brady's won five Super Bowl rings!"
And they are right. Brady has. People might try to minimize his accomplishments, or those of the New England Patriots more generally. I can relate, because I felt the same way about the San Francisco 49ers decades ago. Fact of the matter is, these teams did all that they could, and all that they had to do, to enjoy the level of success that they have enjoyed. You can bring up "Spygate" or "Deflategate," but most experts will tell you that the only difference between the Patriots and other teams in that regard is that the Patriots got caught. And why did they get caught Because they have a higher profile, which is because they are winning better and more regularly than any other franchises out there. Whatever arguments people bring to detract from the accomplishment of Brady and the Patriots has a counterargument, and not just with "Spygate" or "Deflategate." When people say that Montana endured and thrived in a more physical era, it should be remembered that he suffered numerous injuries that sidelined him for parts, or often even entire, games. Hell, he missed the entirety of the 1991 season, and lost his starting position with the 49ers as a result. He got knocked out of the 1986 divisional game with the Giants, the 1990 NFC Championship with the Giants, and the 1993 AFC Championship with the Bills. Brady also got knocked out in the 2001 AFC Championship, but he also played Super Bowl XLII while injured, even though he lost. You cannot claim that he has not taken hits, because he has. But he has endured, now well past the age of 40. He argues that he is better now than he was years ago, and it is hard to argue the point. It is hard to argue with success.
Maybe you can argue that teams were better back then. More physical, and more loaded with talent. Perhaps, but I am not entirely sure that is even all that true. Pro sports is a big business, and it attracts more serious approaches, with athletes who have every means at their disposal to optimize their performance. Plus, the argument of watered down teams suggests that there is less talent, because if every team is watered down, than where did all of the talent go, exactly? Also, if this is a different era designed for greater parity between teams, does that not speak volumes about how successful Tom Brady and the New England Patriots have managed to be during this era? Would Montana and the 49ers have survived as long, or as strong, if they kept losing top talent to free agency, which the Patriots had to do? Because even if the argument that teams are more watered down than in the past is true, does that not speak volumes about how well the Patriots have done in such an era, and how the one constant: Brady's leadership and undeniable greatness, have contributed to New England weathering this obviously huge storm?
Fact of the matter is, whatever the challenges, whatever the storms have brought, Brady and the Patriots have weathered it. Maybe Brady's "moments" did not seem as magical to guys my age as Montana's "moments" did. But to kids who watched him win three Super Bowls in four years well over a decade ago, or for kids who watched him lead his team from a 10-point, 4th quarter deficit against the best defense, and in the biggest possible game, to win, and then to follow that up two years later by orchestrating a comeback from 28-3 down, Brady has had plenty of magical moments to spare. Maybe we are just too old to fully appreciate it. Or maybe all of these sports shows, on television or on radio, scrutinize every little thing, and basically help to take away from the sheer fun of watching these sports, and marveling at the accomplishments of truly gifted athletes.
So, finally, to sum up, the numbers that truly matter the most: the championships, don't lie. It does not matter what LeBron has done in terms of points or whatever other surface stats people measure. LeBron is not as great as Jordan, because he did not lift his team so high as to make them virtually unbeatable, the way that Jordan did. But in the case of Brady and Montana, it is a role reversal. Brady has gotten his team to more Super Bowls, and won more Super Bowls, than Montana ever did, or could. Sorry, but that is what history will remember.
I agree with most people about the likability issue. Given a choice, I would prefer having a night out with Montana over Brady any day. He seems more likable, more personal, more down to earth and less full of himself. I could not stand the 49ers, and yet even I had a Montana jersey, and still have it (don't ask if I still fit in it, though).
However, if I am somehow in the position to make a decision about which quarterback to take and make my franchise quarterback, knowing what I know now? Hands down, it would be Brady. Again, the numbers don't lie, and I am talking about the number of championship rings that he led his team to.
Here is the article that I wrote some years ago, when also comparing Montana and Brady in the lead-up to another of Brady's earlier Super Bowls:
The Brady Versus Montana Argument Now Heating Up , originally published on February 9, 2017:
A couple of years ago, I wrote a blog entry about the debate that was then heating up, questioning who was the greatest quarterback of all time, Tom Brady or Joe Montana.
Now, in the light of the most unbelievable Super Bowl ever, this debate has heated up once again, and more people than ever before seem to be coming around to view Tom Brady as the greatest quarterback ever, or the Greatest Of All Time (GOAT).
So, in response to yet another unbelievable game and championship comeback - the most dramatic one yet! - it seemed like a good idea to enter this debate again myself here, as well as to republish that original blog entry from a couple of years ago.
Here's the argument that Montana fans are making to defend their position: Joe Montana is untouchable when it comes to the Super Bowl. Nobody handled the intensity and the enormity of the game better, especially in the clutch.
Now, here are the facts, when it comes to Super Bowls. Tom Brady has played in seven of them, and compiled a record of 5-2. Montana played in four of them, compiling a record of 4-0. Brady threw 15 touchdowns, with five interceptions in those games, while Montana threw an incredible 11 touchdowns with zero interceptions. Brady completed 67 percent of his passes in an era that was more friendly to quarterbacks, while Montana completed 68 percent of his passes in the biggest game. Tom Brady's overall quarterback rating in those Super Bowl appearances was 95.3, while Montana's cumulative rating was an off the charts 127.8. And some will point out that the Patriots won their five Super Bowl under Brady by a total margin of 19 points, not including the 7 points you would have to subtract if you include the two losses to the Giants. These critics will point out that Montana's 49ers won their four Super Bowls by a total combined margin of 76 points.
If you look at those statistics, then Montana's Super Bowl history indeed has some decisive advantages over that of Brady. I think it is fair to say that Montana was better on average in his Super Bowl appearances than Brady was in his. If you look at just the Super Bowls, you would have to say that Montana seemed to rise to the occasion in the Super Bowl particularly than Brady did.
That said, here are some counter arguments. The most obvious one is this: Brady won more Super Bowls. He just earned his fifth Super Bowl championship ring. In order to earn this, he orchestrated one of the greatest comeback victories in NFL history, and he did it in the biggest game, no less! He has shown incredible poise and leadership at those clutch moments when the game is riding on how he handles it, and he handled it well against the Rams, the Panthers, the Eagles, the Seahawks, and the Falcons.
So, the Super Bowl argument could go either way, really. The next important level would be playoffs, so let's take a look at how each man fared there. Brady played in 34 postseason games and won 25 of them (both records), throwing for 9,094 yards and 63 touchdowns, with 31 interceptions in the process (so far). Brady led his team in 10 game-winning drives in those games. Montana played in 23 postseason games, winning 16 of them, and he threw for 5,772 yards, with 45 touchdowns and 21 interceptions in those games. Brady's passer rating in the playoffs was 89.0, while Montana's was 956. Montana had five game-winning drives in the playoffs.
In the regular season, Brady boasts a record of 183-52, while Montana has a 117-47 record. Brady has thrown for 61,582 yards and 456 career touchdowns, with 152 interceptions. Montana has thrown for 40,551 yards and 273 touchdowns, with 139 interceptions. Brady's career completion percentage in the regular season is 63.8, while Montana's is 63.2. Brady's career passer rating in the regular season is 97.2, while Montana's is 92.3. Brady had 48 game-winning drives, while Montana had 33.
Now, let's look at what the teams accomplished while at the helm for their respective teams. Tom Brady has been on the Patriots since he was drafted in the sixth round of the 2000 draft, and became the starting quarterback for the Patriots in 2001, remaining the starter for every season with the exception of the 2008 season, when he was injured for the season in week one. Joe Montana was drafted by the 49ers in the third round of the 1979 draft, and became the starting quarterback for the San Francisco midway into the 1980 season. Brady led the Patriots to the playoffs 14 times, and they winning the division title during each of those playoff appearances. Montana led the 49ers to the playoffs nine times, with eight division titles, and he led the Chiefs to the playoffs twice, with one division title. Once in the playoffs, Brady's Patriots reached the divisional round of the playoffs 13 times. Montana reached at least the divisional round of the playoffs eight times with the 49ers, and once with Kansas City (he lost the Wildcard Game twice - once with San Francisco, and once with Kansas City). Brady was quarterback for 11 AFC title game appearances, compiling a 7-4 record in those games. Montana was quarterback for 6 NFC title games as well as an AFC title game with Kansas City, compiling a 4-3 record in those games. And, as already mentioned, Brady won five titles in seven Super Bowl appearances, while Montana won all four of his appearances.
Many people will argue that the 49ers faced better teams. Yes, this is true, but the 49ers also had better teams. Remember, they played before the age of the salary cap and free agency which has brought about greater parity than ever before. Montana had Jerry Rice, the greatest wide receiver of all time. They had John Taylor as their second best wide receiver, and that's a pretty damn solid set of wide receivers already! They also had guys like Brent Jones, Dwight Clark, and some other players who really stood out. They had Roger Craig and Tom Rathman. They had a serious offensive line protecting that backfield offensive talent, too! And, of course, let us not forget the underrated defense. They were underrated at the time, and most people seem to have forgotten just how tough and physical that defense was! They had Charles Haley, who is the only other player to have won five Super Bowl rings. They had Michael Carter, who won an Olympic silver medal. They had Ronnie Lott and Eric Young in the secondary. Indeed, that was an incredible team! San Francisco had a great team all around.
And while the Patriots did not compete against teams that were on the level that the 49ers had to face (think of the Giants, Washington, or Chicago, who were among the big bullies of the time that the 49ers had to get through to reach the Super Bowl), Tom Brady and the Patriots did face the best teams of their era. The whole dynasty began with an improbable Super Bowl run that ended with a victory over the juggernaut St. Louis Rams, who were on the verge of emerging as a dynasty themselves. That Rams team of the late 1990's and early 2000's is still considered one of the best offensive teams in NFL history, but their legacy was obviously compromised when they were prohibitive favorites against New England, but still lost. The Atlanta Falcons this year were on that caliber of offense, and once again, the New England Patriots managed to beat such a team on the biggest stage of all, and with that incredible comeback, to boot! Plus, the Pats beat the best defensive team (and probably best team of the era) in the Seattle Seahawks just two years ago. Granted, the Seahawks have dropped a couple of rungs down the ladder, but that may have been in large part due to what New England managed to do to them in that Super Bowl. They just never seemed quite the same since.
Also, let us not forget that this is the era of parity in the NFL, due to free agency and the salary cap. That means that it is difficult to retain the talent on a team, especially a good team. As a result, these Brady-era Patriots did not have the kind of talent around them that the Montana-era 49ers enjoyed. Certainly not consistently. There were some big names on the Patriots during some of those championships. Randy Moss was there for one of the Super Bowls, although that was the one where the undefeated Pats lost the Super Bowl.
Really, let's face it: there just is no way to know for sure. The two played in very different eras. They never faced each other, because Montana retired after the 1994 season, while Brady only entered the NFL in 2000, when the salary cap and free agency had changed the face of the league completely. Not only could those Montana-era San Francisco 49ers not face the Brady-era New England Patriots, but it would be different criteria. The only way that we could know for sure is if Montana was on these New England Patriots facing the obstacles of parity, and/or Brady was on those San Francisco 49ers teams with Jerry Rice and that talented 49ers team, while facing teams like the '85 Bears or the '86 and '90 New York Giants. Obviously, that is not going to happen.
To my mind's eye, most likely the best way to tell is based on championship success, and indeed, you can make an argument that Montana was a more clutch performer once in the Super Bowl than Brady is or has been. However, they are both great, and you cannot take away Brady's record five Super Bowl rings as quarterback.
I used the following article, as well as Pro Football Reference, for the statistics that I used above (see the links to both below):
Who Is the GOAT? Joe Montana Versus Tom Brady | NBC Bay Area by Brendan Webber, February 6, 2017:
Note: I originally published this piece a couple of years ago, before Tom Brady and the Patriots even beat the Seahawks in that Super Bowl stunner, which will forever be remembered for the 2nd and 1 that wound up being intercepted. Just thought it would be interesting to republish it, in the light of yet another Super Bowl triumph by Brady's Patriots, and in an even more shocking manner than that Seattle game two years ago.
Brady Versus Montana
(originally published on February 1, 2015
The debate has raged these last few weeks like never before: will Tom Brady attain the same elite status as a quarterback as Joe Montana if the Patriots manage to win this Super Bowl?
Or, will his legacy be forever diminished because he would then be 4-2 in Super Bowls, and not 4-0, or better?
Ultimately, that is the unanswerable question. Unless, of course, Brady were to win both this Super Bowl, and follow it up with another title next season, as the Patriots begin to reach for a status that no team has ever gotten: consecutive "Team of the Decade" honors.
Even then, however, I get the feeling that some will always detract from Brady, because of "Deflate Gate", and because of the taping scandal, and because he lost Super Bowls, particularly the one in the undefeated season, and because he is accused of being a smug pretty boy that is generally not likable, and because he played in an era that favored quarterbacks and offenses more than when Montana played the game, and because he allegedly had a better supporting cast around him, and because Belichick is a genius, and Brady would not have succeeded to the degree that he did without him.
The point is this: you can pretty much craft these arguments as you like them, to support your point.
If I were to say, for example, that Brady's regular season statistics exceed, and perhaps even far exceed, those of Montana, than supporters of Montana will inevitably argue that it is unfair to make that comparison, because the league is more geared for offenses, and particularly for quarterbacks now, than it was in the past.
There are always arguments for undermining the accomplishments of more recent players - and that is particularly true when those players are members of the New England Patriots.
On the one hand, I think that this author, Killion, makes some valid points.
But one thing which I disagree with is what he considers his checkmate point: Brady's record in Super Bowls versus Montana's record in Super Bowls.
Montana, of course, was 4-0 in Super Bowls. Brady is 3-2, with it pending on the outcome of this coming Super Bowl.
But Killion states that, even if Brady wins this Super Bowl, his imperfect record in the Super Bowl disqualifies him as the "best quarterback ever" because, according to Killion, Montana was the better quarterback in the biggest game.
I understand his point. But playoffs, I think we can agree, are pretty important games as well. And Brady won in his Championship Games more frequently than Montana did. That means that, in that regard, he is actually the more accomplished quarterback in terms of Super Bowl appearances and, if he wins, he would logically be the more accomplished quarterback. Unless, of course, you want to credit Joe Montana's losses in the championship games, since they possibly saved him from suffering any losses in the big game. It does not make sense to make that argument, but that is what you are essentially arguing when you look only at the Super Bowls.
Ultimately, however, each quarterback played their position as well as you could realistically ask while they were playing. Montana went from 1979 until 1994, with two teams. He won four Super Bowls with the 49ers, and played in an AFC Championship Game with the Chiefs. Brady has, so far, played his entire career with the New England Patriots, although his father predicted that he would have trouble from them within a few years, when they look for a younger quarterback. His legacy is still being written, and a major chapter will be written this Sunday. Either his winning in the big games shows diversity and elasticity with a win in his late-thirties, to go with the three titles that came in his twenties. Or, he loses another Super Bowl, and people begin to wonder why he and the Patriots cannot win anymore on the biggest stage.
I think it is safe to assume that Montana would be still considered the greatest quarterback when it comes to Super Bowls, at the very least. He always seems to have found ways to step up and stand out on the biggest stage, having won three Super Bowl MVP awards. He has thrown 11 touchdown passes, with no interceptions, in those four big games, and his overall rating in them was off the charts. Brady, when it comes strictly to Super Bowl play, simply cannot compare.
Yet, let us also not forget that there is a little bit of luck involved in some of these things. For example, Montana's finest moment in Super Bowl history came at the very end of XXIII, during the famous, game-winning drive against the Bengals. But moments before he hit John Taylor in the end zone for the championship winning score, he threw the ball right to Chauncy Billups of the Bengals, who could not quite hang onto it for what would have been an interception that iced the game. That surely would have affected how history viewed "Joe Cool", I would think. Similarly, Brady almost won the two Super Bowls against the Giants, and if not for a couple of miracle plays by the Giants offense, the Patriots could very well be 5-0, and not 3-2, during the Brady era, which would have made a world of difference as to how he is perceived, as well.
No matter what your stance on who the better quarterback is, however, I think it is fair to say that both of them were great - among the very best of all time! Most people like Joe Montana, and I never met anyone who disliked him. In fact, even though I hated, and still hate, the 49ers, I always liked Jo Montana, as well as Jerry Rice and Bill Walsh. Not entirely sure why, but there you go.
As for the Patriots, I understand why some people hate the Patriots, and perhaps particularly Brady and Belicheck. However, they are such an accomplished team in an age of free agency and parity that usually does not allow for enduring success, that you simply have to give them their accolades. They certainly rank among the greatest of all time.
But let us see what happens in the game later today, before we put Brady up there at the very top just yet.
Even if he wins 4th ring, Brady’s no Montana published by Killion, January 26, 2015:
As for "Deflate Gate", here was something that I thought was interesting: Boomer Esiason took exception to Richard Sherman's criticisms of the league, and how he felt that nobody on the Patriots was going to get punished, because Roger Goodell has warm personal relations with Patriots owner Robert Kraft.
Here is some of what Esiason said:
"Should the NFL fine Richard Sherman for attacking the commissioner and the integrity of the league?" Esaison asked. "If I were the commissioner, I would. You can't have a player, who's one of the best players at his position and who has an open microphone and will continue to have an open microphone all this week, questioning your authority and your integrity.
"Richard Sherman seems to forget that Roger Goodell also works for his owner, Paul Allen ... and has many times sat down with Paul Allen, privately, in a friendly situation.
"So Richard Sherman fired a shot across the bow of the commissioner. Now, it's going to be up to the commissioner and the NFL to act accordingly. I think a heavy-duty fine is in order. Let's see if the commissioner has the guts to levy it," Esiason said.
Quotes taken from:
'Deflategate': Richard Sherman should be fined, Boomer Esiason says By AUSTIN KNOBLAUCH, January 27, 2015:
Few more articles on or related to Tom Brady:
Brett Favre: Tom Brady is the best QB in the league by In Depth Videos 1:39 mins
Tom Brady's 2008 knee injury gave perspective he needed ... on losing Eric Edholm By Eric Edholm 1 hour ago Shutdown Corner, January 27, 2015:
Top 20 Postseason Touchdown Leaders
Thought I would throw this in: prediction of the Super Bowl winner after 50,000 runs.
Simulator runs Super Bowl matchup 50,000 times, and winner is ... Kristian Dyer of Shutdown Corner, January 27, 2015:
Joe Montana wins every best-ever argument over Tom Brady by Bill Bender, February 2, 2015:
http://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/super-bowl-xlix-joe-montana-tom-brady-peyton-manning-debate-best-ever-quarterback-super-bowls-records/1u2wh4pjxgjtp18g146243eevf
40 mind-boggling Tom Brady playoff facts ahead of QB's 40th playoff game by Bill Bender, January, 2019:
The Greatest NFL Quarterbacks Of All Time
https://www.thedelite.com/greatest-nfl-quarterbacks-of-all-time/?lvl=opt2&stack=ssp&utm_source=yahoo-adrizer&utm_campaign=127901&utm_term=SPORTS_US_2~c&utm_content=adrizer
No comments:
Post a Comment