Reply With Quote
I mean I think Montana and Brady are neck and neck now. It's not egregious to have either on top of the other.
Exactly my point. Despite having a system that teams were not equipped to defend, when adversity struck, Montana struggled like anyone else does. He wasn't unstoppable, unflappable, and NEVER put mediocre talent on his back the way Brady or Manning has had to through large chunks of their careers.And they still dominated the Niners in 1985
But the Giants kicked the Niners ass in the playoffs in back to back years and eliminated them in 1990.
And as teams got equipped to defend them, they started flaming out early each year. So I don't get what makes Montana so unquestionably better than Brady.
I mean I think Montana and Brady are neck and neck now. It's not egregious to have either on top of the other.
I don't know. Two lucky ass wins (2001 and this one) and two chokes, not sure about that at all.
If the Rams won like they should have, I think there was a chance that Brady gets benched during or after the following season when the Patriots didn't even make the playoffs. From that point, he may not have ever won a super bowl. It's a very fine line. He's a much better player now then he was then though, but he got all the chances he needed to work on it with a great team around him.
Montana's still number 1 to me and also a few other quarterbacks were great, but unfortunately they didn't get to play in or win as many super bowls as Brady. I still think Kurt Warner was the better quarterback between the two in the 2001 super bowl.
They had lucky happen time after time during that first run. Adam Vinatieri was the MVP of that first Superbowl and possibly that whole playoff run.
Two lucky losses too, don't forget those. I was happy the giants won them, but they were just as, if not more lucky than 01 and this one. And if we wanna talk about luck, it was pure luck that Seattle even had it down on the goal line to begin with.
Brady didn't play as well as you're saying in those two Superbowls against the Giants. That's one of the reasons why they lost. He wasn't playing one of his better games in either or those superbowls. I seem to recall them bringing up excuses about his ankle after one of them.
No, they won back to back in 1988 and 1989 after losing to the Giants in 86 and 87 and reached the NFC le game in 1990 and lost on a last second FG after Montana was knocked out of the game and basically missed the following season and benched in 1992. However, he gets traded to the Chiefs and carries them to the AFC le game in his first year at the age of 38
Didn't Montana luck out in Superbowl game winning drive? Something about a db dropping an interception that hit him on the chest iirc?
Sorry, I disagree. Montana's the better player between the two. I don't think I'll change my mind on that.Two lucky losses too, don't forget those. I was happy the giants won them, but they were just as, if not more lucky than 01 and this one. And if we wanna talk about luck, it was pure luck that Seattle even had it down on the goal line to begin with.
Montana also played when defense was allowed. And Brady choked in the Super Bowl with Moss, Welker, and what was at the time the greatest offense in NFL history.
Pretty pedestrian today. Lots of the yardage was Vereen and Edelman after the catch. Two AWFUL interceptions (not tipped balls).
That said while he wasn't the MVP tonight, he's cemented himself ahead of the rest of his generation once and for all. Peyton is Karl Malone with a ring by default because he faced Rex Grossman in the Super Bowl.
Prove it.
I agree with that. He's earned best of his generation, not best of all time though IMO.
Of course people won't want to remember details like that, among many others. Nope, in their minds Montana was perfect and made no mistakes and had no weaknesses.
It was a dropped pick earlier in the game, but not on the game-winning drive.
Montana - 11 TD passes 0 interceptions in 4 superbowls. It took Brady 6 superbowls to break his TD passing record.
you want him to prove that he disagrees?
Simply not the case, especially if you consider Montana has never thrown an INT
If Lynch breaks an extra tackle and sneaks into the end zone, the story line tomorrow is "Tom did not play well enough to break his Super Bowl losing streak". His 2 INTs were quite bad.
Joe: 4 perfect games, his final 3 SB's totaled 985 yards + 10 TDs
Losing in the semis/conference finals > losing in the finals
i largely agree with this. but there is also the element of closing it out. its like missing a game winning shot as time expires vs missing a big shot one minute prior.
Losing in the semis/conference finals > losing in the finals
but yeah, i'll take a superbowl loss vs no appearance... any day of the weak. anybody who says otherwise just hasn't put enough thought into what they're saying
Losing in the semis/conference finals > losing in the finals
All this
I didn't watch Montana/Marino but I was always on the Peyton=GOAT wagon until this year. Brady is the best of this generation. has that prettyboy swag tbh.
i'm the same way
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
