Brady vs Montana

[Hugh 0ne]

I wonder what Tom Brady would do at the helm of a ship manned by Emmitt Smith and Michael Irvin?

 

 

 

Blow them?

[Sgt. Ryan]

Yes...precisely for the reasons you suggest. It's a lot tougher to sustain winning in this day and age then it was 10-15 years ago.

 

 

Not exactly. There just isnt a team like the Boys, Steelers or Packers of past generations. If the Boys had Michael, emmit, and Aikman today, they would be dominate. But today, few teams have all of that, plus a nice defense. Think about this. If Indy had even the least bit of an NFl calibur D, they would probably have dominated this era. New england didnt have a legit RB or Wr for at least 2 of those Sb runs, but because of parity, they didnt need to be as strong as past Dynastys to win in the playoffs. Would that Pats team have beaten the Bills teams in the 90s, or the 49ers or Packers who came up short so many times against the Cowboys, no way. In this era, if you have a good- great Qb, and I believe Brady is every bit good-great, and a good to great D, you have a shot. What other team has had that in the last 7 years.

 

Indy, No

Denver- No

PItt, No, but they won in spite of Roeth

Balt, No, but they won in spite of poor Qb play

Philly, the closest thing to both, and they were the most dominate team in the NFC.

 

 

 

But back in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's, you had to have alot more to be a Dynasty than just a good-great QB and good-great D. You needed a good-great Running game, and sometimes that wasnt even enough. See the Boys of the 70's, 49ers and Packers for most of the 90's, and the Bronco's of the 80's.

 

The Bronco's had a great Qb and good-great D, but that wasnt enough, and I compare this Pats team, to that of the 80's Broncos. But in this day and age, that is enough to win it all, multiple times.

Back then, it got you blown out in Sb's, if you were fortunate enough to get there.

 

 

All that said, I still dont think Brady is as good as Elway, Montana or Aikman.

Edited January 8, 2007 by Sgt. Ryan

[AllThingsBillBelichick]

Is Brady ahead of Farve?

[Caveman_Nick]

Isnt it ironic that they havent, won a road playoff game, nor played in a AFC title game, or even Sb since those two have left.

 

Sarge, that's pretty weak and pathetic. They have been gone for 1 season

 

 

And Bill is no Jimmy Johnson, Bill Walsh, Vince Lombardi, Tom Landy or Chuck Knoll, and probably is more on par with Bill Cowher, than any of the great coaches of all time.

 

 

As is this. The level of dominance that the Pats have had over the last several years is a big accomplishment considering the focus on the league of creating parity.

 

Would the Boyz teams of the early 90's kick the crap out of this Pats team? I dunno. Maybe. Different era...the players today as a whole are much bigger and stronger, and that team was much more stacked with talent from A-Z. But it doesn't matter a whit. That team was flat out great for it's time. This team is great for it's time. What's wrong with that?

 

The comparison is like trying to compare what Bill Russell did in the 60s with what Shaq is doing now in terms of dominance. I dunno if a player of Russell's ability would even make an NBA squad today, but that can't change how great he was during his time.

 

As far as comparing this player with that player and all that, I think that people should wait until someone's career is over to even try to make the comparisons. But I do ask, how would Brady look with a back as dominant as Smith was, a receiver as good as Irving was, a TE as dominant as Nocachek was, and a line as dominant as that Boys line, comparing those players to the rest of the league at the time. I imagine that he'd look better than he does now, and that would be something.

[The Next Generation]

Not exactly. There just isnt a team like the Boys, Steelers or Packers of past generations. If the Boys had Michael, emmit, and Aikman today, they would be dominate. But today, few teams have all of that, plus a nice defense. Think about this. If Indy had even the least bit of an NFl calibur D, they would probably have dominated this era. New england didnt have a legit RB or Wr for at least 2 of those Sb runs, but because of parity, they didnt need to be as strong as past Dynastys to win in the playoffs. Would that Pats team have beaten the Bills teams in the 90s, or the 49ers or Packers who came up short so many times against the Cowboys, no way. In this era, if you have a good- great Qb, and I believe Brady is every bit good-great, and a good to great D, you have a shot. What other team has had that in the last 7 years.

 

Indy, No

Denver- No

PItt, No, but they won in spite of Roeth

Balt, No, but they won in spite of poor Qb play

Philly, the closest thing to both, and they were the most dominate team in the NFC.

But back in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's, you had to have alot more to be a Dynasty than just a good-great QB and good-great D. You needed a good-great Running game, and sometimes that wasnt even enough. See the Boys of the 70's, 49ers and Packers for most of the 90's, and the Bronco's of the 80's.

 

The Bronco's had a great Qb and good-great D, but that wasnt enough, and I compare this Pats team, to that of the 80's Broncos. But in this day and age, that is enough to win it all, multiple times.

Back then, it got you blown out in Sb's, if you were fortunate enough to get there.

All that said, I still dont think Brady is as good as Elway, Montana or Aikman.

 

 

I understand your stance and you have obviously thought a lot more about the subject than I have for obvious reasons. But, while the dynasties of yesteryear where much more star-studded than the one dynasty of today, I think it takes a lot more to BECOME a dynasty today than it did back then.

 

You say, "If the Boys had Michael, emmit, and Aikman today, they would be dominate." I say, only if they had that all-world O-line again which would be MUCH harder to assemble today than back then with the other "stud" players on the team. Regardless, it's a changing dynamic, building a dynasty in the new millenium than it was in the 60s, 70s, 80s & 90s.

 

Would the Boys of the 90s beaten the Pats of the 00s? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that their star QB is any better than the star QB of the Pats team. In fact, I'd say all those reasons would support the Pats QB as being the better one (although I'm not sold on that yet, either).

 

Thanks for laying it out, though. And, for what it's worth, I'd rather have the old days back. It was better football, IMO.

[The Next Generation]

As far as comparing this player with that player and all that, I think that people should wait until someone's career is over to even try to make the comparisons. But I do ask, how would Brady look with a back as dominant as Smith was, a receiver as good as Irving was, a TE as dominant as Nocachek was, and a line as dominant as that Boys line, comparing those players to the rest of the league at the time. I imagine that he'd look better than he does now, and that would be something.

 

 

That's was essentially what I was trying to say.

[Sgt. Ryan]

I'd rather have the old days back. It was better football, IMO.

 

 

Amen to that.

[msaint]

...rushing champion and HOF RB, soon to be Hall of fame WR, one of the most clutch pass catching TEs in the league, and maybe one of the best OL from tackle to tackle to ever suit up. Jimmy was a great big game coach. What objective critism can you say about any of this.

 

 

for starters, brady having a great defense (and, in your and many other peoples' views, that's why he has two of three rings) pales in comparison to what aikman had to play with all those years, as exemplified by your very own words above. if you're going to hold brady's "team assets" against him then you sure as hell have to hold aikman's considerably more valuable ones against HIM. can't have it both ways, sarge.

[Bill Swerski]

Lets just say I wouldnt put brady ahead of even Aikman yet, let alone Montana. Brady had one of the better defenses in the league in 2 of those 3 Sb wins, something Montana never had

 

Um, all but two of Montana's defenses in SF ranked in the Top 5 in points allowed. Put Walsh's then-new WCO into the equation and Montana was probably in a better position to win championships than any other QB in NFL history.

 

Rings are a function of how well one's team plays, not how proficient or "clutch" its QB is. I agree with Chavez that Steve Young was a better QB than Montana.

[kcmast]

Is Brady ahead of Farve?

 

Depends if your team needs a gun-slinger or an in control under pressure situations. Very different QBs that you can argue either way for. I started off as a non-Brady believer, but he just keeps coming up big in big situations

[Bronco Billy]

Amen to that.

 

 

Yeah, that's great if you are a fan of one of the "haves". Watch them repeatedly win 12-15 games each year and perpetually be expected to be in the conference finals at the least. For the half of the league that were "have nots" before the season even started, it sucked, and it sucked big time.

 

The great football teams may not be as great as in the past, because before FA & the salary cap, certain teams just loaded up each season, season after season. But over all, the product & the league are better in this day & age, if nothing else than for the fact that with the exception of some very few franchises that have been run into the ground, fans from all teams have legitimate hope of making the playoffs every season, and if they don't make the playoffs this season, they know that they are only a few acquirable pieces away the next season.

 

Hell, even the franchises that have been run into the ground can be turned around in 2-3 years with some good management/coaching changes & a little luck.

[Bill Swerski]

Depends if your team needs a gun-slinger or an in control under pressure situations. Very different QBs that you can argue either way for. I started off as a non-Brady believer, but he just keeps coming up big in big situations

 

 

Um, Favre did pretty well back in the mid-90's when GB had a dominant defense and he didn't have to force passes into double coverage. He also won quite a few playoff games with mediocre defenses after that. By my count, Brady has won a whole one playoff game with defenses that didn't rank in the Top 10.

 

Favre is hands-down a much better QB than Brady.

[Bronco Billy]

Um, all but two of Montana's defenses in SF ranked in the Top 5 in points allowed. Put Walsh's then-new WCO into the equation and Montana was probably in a better position to win championships than any other QB in NFL history.

 

 

 

Don't think that the ball control & scoring ability of those offenses didn't factor into the SF D's numbers, just like the late 90s Broncos D looked a whole lot better because the O scored so much so early in games & held on to the ball for so much. Much like the Pats of 2-5 years ago, those SF & DEN teams simply didn't make a lot of mistakes and kept the chains moving, burning up the clock while the team scored & putting tremendous pressure on the opposing O to play flawlessly when they got the ball back.

[kcmast]

Um, Favre did pretty well back in the mid-90's when GB had a dominant defense and he didn't have to force passes into double coverage. He also won quite a few playoff games with mediocre defenses after that. By my count, Brady has won a whole one playoff game with defenses that didn't rank in the Top 10.

 

Favre is hands-down a much better QB than Brady.

 

I'm a Packer fan, so I'm not nocking Favre. What I'm saying is that if my DEF is not top 10 and I need spectacular QB play, I'd go with Favre as he brings the "anything can happen." If I need a solid QB play where error at the wrong time or not completing that 3-and-7 pass can kill the team, I'm taking Brady.

[Sgt. Ryan]

for starters, brady having a great defense (and, in your and many other peoples' views, that's why he has two of three rings) pales in comparison to what aikman had to play with all those years, as exemplified by your very own words above. if you're going to hold brady's "team assets" against him then you sure as hell have to hold aikman's considerably more valuable ones against HIM. can't have it both ways, sarge.

 

 

 

Im not having it both ways. Im saying Dallas needed everything to win at that time, and NE only needs a D and a Qb to win now. Which is why previous Dynastys are more dominate, and would run rough shot over todays. And Im not even saying Brady is as good a Qb as many before him. So you obviously missed my point .

Edited January 8, 2007 by Sgt. Ryan

[SNOWBOUND33]

Blow them?

 

Oooooooooo

[AllThingsBillBelichick]

Certainly, Bellichick has to go down at the best coach in history?

[Bill Swerski]

Don't think that the ball control & scoring ability of those offenses didn't factor into the SF D's numbers, just like the late 90s Broncos D looked a whole lot better because the O scored so much so early in games & held on to the ball for so much. Much like the Pats of 2-5 years ago, those SF & DEN teams simply didn't make a lot of mistakes and kept the chains moving, burning up the clock while the team scored & putting tremendous pressure on the opposing O to play flawlessly when they got the ball back.

 

 

Oh, I agree. The '80s 49ers defenses certainly did not have the play-making ability that Belichick's Superbowl defenses in NE have. However, those '9ers defenses had a lot of talent, were well-coached, and were good for several years.

 

I'm a Packer fan, so I'm not nocking Favre. What I'm saying is that if my DEF is not top 10 and I need spectacular QB play, I'd go with Favre as he brings the "anything can happen." If I need a solid QB play where error at the wrong time or not completing that 3-and-7 pass can kill the team, I'm taking Brady.

 

 

If I'm up by one score late in the game and have one of Belichick's Super Bowl-era defenses, I'll go with Brady. He makes few mistakes once he has a lead. However, if I the score is 0-0 in the first quarter and I have an average defense, I go with Favre in his prime because he has much greater play-making ability than Brady.

[Caveman_Nick]

Im not having it both ways. Im saying Dallas needed everything to win at that time, and NE only needs a D and a Qb to win now. Which is why previous Dynastys are more dominate, and would run rough shot over todays. And Im not even saying Brady is as good a Qb as many before him. So you obviously missed my point .

 

 

While I think you are understating what NE needs to win (ie. I think the coach, and particularly the o-line have a lot to do with it), it would be hard to argue that the top teams of 12+ years ago needed to be really good in all phases of the game to win. Those teams that did a good job with their talent evaluation could really put something special together. I don't think anybody could argue that doing so wasn't necessary to winning a championship, either.

[Caveman_Nick]

Yeah, that's great if you are a fan of one of the "haves". Watch them repeatedly win 12-15 games each year and perpetually be expected to be in the conference finals at the least. For the half of the league that were "have nots" before the season even started, it sucked, and it sucked big time.

 

The great football teams may not be as great as in the past, because before FA & the salary cap, certain teams just loaded up each season, season after season. But over all, the product & the league are better in this day & age, if nothing else than for the fact that with the exception of some very few franchises that have been run into the ground, fans from all teams have legitimate hope of making the playoffs every season, and if they don't make the playoffs this season, they know that they are only a few acquirable pieces away the next season.

 

Hell, even the franchises that have been run into the ground can be turned around in 2-3 years with some good management/coaching changes & a little luck.

 

 

 

During Dallas' run, weren't we in the age of pre-salary-cap free agency?

 

Wasn't the dominance of that team and a few others a large part of the motivation for the institution of the salary cap?

[msaint]

Yeah, that's great if you are a fan of one of the "haves". Watch them repeatedly win 12-15 games each year and perpetually be expected to be in the conference finals at the least. For the half of the league that were "have nots" before the season even started, it sucked, and it sucked big time.

 

The great football teams may not be as great as in the past, because before FA & the salary cap, certain teams just loaded up each season, season after season. But over all, the product & the league are better in this day & age, if nothing else than for the fact that with the exception of some very few franchises that have been run into the ground, fans from all teams have legitimate hope of making the playoffs every season, and if they don't make the playoffs this season, they know that they are only a few acquirable pieces away the next season.

 

Hell, even the franchises that have been run into the ground can be turned around in 2-3 years with some good management/coaching changes & a little luck.

 

 

Even as one of the recent "haves" I remember all too clearly the Rod Rust/Ray Berry/Dick MacPherson days of 2-14, 1-15 Pats teams. Hell, as recently as 2000 they were 5-11 (BB's first year). It can change fast these days, which is good. And it's what's wrong with baseball, IMO. Too many KC Royals...

 

edit: i now realize it's not fair to lump ray berry in with those others. he was actually 44-35 in 5 years, while, by comparison, rust/mcpherson went a combined 9-39 in three years, and even parcells was only 32-32 in four years

Edited January 8, 2007 by msaint

[Bronco Billy]

 

Wasn't the dominance of that team and a few others a large part of the motivation for the institution of the salary cap?

 

 

Actually, I'd disagree with that. The owners instituted the salary cap to keep from killing each other in bidding for player services and keep salaries (and the player union) in check (relatively speaking, of course). The NFL has always had a large portion of owners who were very well aware that keeping the overall health of the league in great shape meant that the financial health of individual teams was assured - something the other major pro leagues could take a lesson from.

[Caveman_Nick]

During Dallas' run, weren't we in the age of pre-salary-cap free agency?

 

Wasn't the dominance of that team and a few others a large part of the motivation for the institution of the salary cap?

 

 

 

Actually, I'd disagree with that. The owners instituted the salary cap to keep from killing each other in bidding for player services and keep salaries (and the player union) in check (relatively speaking, of course). The NFL has always had a large portion of owners who were very well aware that keeping the overall health of the league in great shape meant that the financial health of individual teams was assured - something the other major pro leagues could take a lesson from.

 

 

 

You say you disagree, yet what you write says you agree.

 

The dominance of the Dallas team and a few others made owners realize that if they wanted to keep up with the Jonses (literally), then they would have to spend like the Jonses. They knew that it could spiral out of control, ala MLB, and went salary cap.

 

Some organizations with owners that were willing to spend the coin to win showed the rest what they didn't want. Dallas was one of the former.

[skylive5]

Is Brady ahead of Farve?

 

 

Ahead of Farve? Gimmie a break. Montana, Unitas, Starr, Young, .... you name one..... they all pale in comparison to Brady....the greatest QB to ever play the game. All of them should be taken out of the HoF and record books.... leave only room for Brady.... the god of NFL football QB's.

 

Ahead of Farve.

[Caveman_Nick]

Ahead of Farve? Gimmie a break. Montana, Unitas, Starr, Young, .... you name one..... they all pale in comparison to Brady....the greatest QB to ever play the game. All of them should be taken out of the HoF and record books.... leave only room for Brady.... the god of NFL football QB's.

 

Ahead of Farve.

 

 

 

I can't tell what the level of sarcasm is in this post...