In response to p-mike's comment:

Agreed. And, of course, this thread neglects to mention Baugh, Graham, & Unitas. So maybe only the flavors of the last couple of decades will be in vogue then too

For me it doesn't matter which one is number one.  Consider, if 11 years ago, after Bledsoe went down, if someone were to tell you then that TB would even be in the conversation as one of the best ever - you'd have settled for that all day long.  Is he better than Montana - heck, I don't know - stats are what they are, eras are what they are, and at the end of the day, most fans of the 49ers will say Montana, and most fans of the Pats will say TB.  I do know this - for 11 years, and perhaps a few more - Pats fans have been blessed by the fact that we're playoff/AFC champion/SB champion contenders pretty much every year.  Have we won every year?  Nope, how has.  But our teams have at least equalled the very best "runs" of any team in the SB era - that's something special and when it's gone - and it will eventually be gone - we'll have memories to tell our grandchildren about.  I for one am perfectly satisfied, pleased, and thankful for that.

In response to gr82bme's comment:

Good points; especially about Brady started as the backup to Bledsoe; I think of that unbelievable factoid every time he takes the field, and the fact that Brady was a 6th round pick while Bledsoe was a 1st overall pick; not that he was a bust, mind you, since he was for awhile one of the better QBs in the NFL, lead the Pats to their 2nd ever SB appearance & actually came up big when Brady was hurt in the PS during their 1st crown.

This post has been removed.

In response to bobbysu's comment:

 

I saw Montana play at the OLD Foxboro. The BEST! Nobody better. Guy had a rifle arm, could run, smart. Walsh was the Coach, we lost. That team won the Superbowl. They were dominant. Brady was never mobile. Montana could get out of trouble.

When Montana played football was a LOT tougher. They were killing QB's. Brady is lucky he didn't play in Montana's time.

Hey Bredbru, you ever see Montana play? I remember him at Notre Dame.

 

Rifle arm and could run huh, don't think I've ever heard anyone describe Montana like that.  

 

I wouldn't characterize Montana's arm as "rifle" like.  But he could extend plays with his feet/legs, throw accurately on the run, and was the best I ever saw at hitting receivers in stride - almost as if the ball was being thrown to a spot where the receiver would end up/finish his route.  Of course, he had some all-world receivers, and Roger Craig out of the backfield (could run and catch very well) was the perfect "dump down." 

In response to bobbysu's comment:

I watched Montana obsessively growing up. He was many things, not least among them a winner. A great scrambler. A terrific decision maker. As accurate as anyone in league history. And possibly the greatest quarterback (and I use the full word to sum up everything a QB does to help his team win). 

What I've never seen anyone say about him was that he had a rifle arm. His arm strength, imo, was just "good" by NFL standards. 

Certainly nothing compared to Brady. 

Also, while Tom is not John Elway, I can't think of a QB who is better at "getting out of trouble". The guy has eyes on the back of his head. 

Ditto @ Shenanigan and Gr82bme. 

Rifle arm and a running QB? 

Maybe Joe Cool's reputation has just grown out of proportion in history to some. 

Although it really doesn't need too ... I mean the "Chicken Soup Game" in college was just nails, and that is before he ever stepped on the NFL field to build that legacy. 

I think this is like confusing him with Steve Young, who had both of those things .... but was 3/4 the quarterback Montana was. 

In response to Quagmire3's comment:

Unless you play the Broncos and heave a 70 yard TD pass in the last 30 seconds!!!  (-;

If there is one element to this discussion that give Brady and the Pats (I include the team as this is a team game) some edge is the era in which their accomplishments are occurring.  The NFL has set up the league since the late 90's to have parity.  It is very difficult for a team to field the same group of players year in and year out.  This is what makes the fact the Brady/BB combo is appearing in their SEVENTH AFCCG and potentially their SIXTH SB!!  All in the span of 12 years!  True, we talk about Montana 4 SB rings in 4 tries, but, he has only been to 4 SBs, if I am correct.  The Brady/BB combo is in position, not counting this year, to possibly appear in 1 or 2 more SBs given the young talent that is on the Pats right now.  Imagine for a sec, when all is said and done we could see these stat lines for Brady:

SB appearances - 8 +/- I can see a couple more

SB victories - 4+/-   I can see at least one more

AFCCGs - 9 +/- I can see a couple more

Total Playoff Victories - 25 +/- All the above happens, BB/Brady get to 25 +

Will there any QB/Coach combination that can come close?

In response to Tydog's comment:

Ty, 

To be more accurate the Super Bowl was dominated by the AFC from 1969 till the early 1980s with about an 11-2 mark. Starting I believe in about 1982-83 the NFC dominated with about a 14-3 record then starting in 1998 the AFC started dominating the game again until a few years ago with about a 9-4 record. Of course the NFC has won the last three. 

Hetch

In response to dapats1281's comment:

Yes the 1990 title game when Roger Craig fumbled. Don't gte me wrong, the Giants were a heck of a team that year but the Niners were still better I think. The 92 loss to the Cowboys was the beginning of their run and by that time I think Steve Young was the starting QB. I think? In the 86 playoff game the Giants were certainly better.

In response to zbellino's comment:

"3/4 the quarterback Montana was."  Agree completely, and you've pretty much quantified the contrast - if we can agree that SY was 75% or X% of Montana, that only demonstrates just how good the guy was.  I mean, SY was a no-kiddin' HOFer, gifted athlete, arm and leg strength - the total package.  I seem to remember someone asking Walsh he considered Montana's greatest attribute and he answered (paraphrased) - he's coachable and he's never satisfied.  Sound like another QB we all know and love?  That's why these two are in a class by themselves - "gunslingers" may win alot and win the big one a time or two.  Cerebral types win more often, espeaically the "big one."

In response to jaytftwofive's comment:

Between that and the Tyree catch and the Norwood miss I have never seen a luckier franchise. Not putting down the Giants because I have no more love or hate for them than any other opponent. But seems every time I see them they get some strange break you are amazed at.

In response to gr82bme's comment:

I don't recall the quote. Bill Walsh's "Building a Champion" has a lot of insight into how he viewed Montana as an athlete and leader. I remember him talking about how smooth Montana was in his drop-to-throw. 

At any rate, yeah, Montana wasn't the best "athlete" or even the best "passer" in his era. But he was the best QB, maybe of all time. 

I think the same can be said of Tom. 

If you folks want to go purely by stats please read the following:

First about Otto Graham with the Browns.

In fact, they'd go on to set a record that still stands, appearing in six straight NFL championship games from 1950 to 1955, winning three of them. Bottom line: Graham played in a pro football championship game every single season of his 10-year career, winning seven of them in two different leagues.

Bart Starr: 9-1 in playoff history with 5, count em 5 NFL titles in six seasons.

One could make the argument that league talent wasn't as good in the Graham or Starr days in the NFL but the same argument could be made saying the NFL talent is much better now than in Montana's day. Bottom line for me is who was the best QB of their generation and not all-time. Because just based on stats of winning Championships both Graham and Starr stand out as the best. Starr 9-1 in post season is mind boggling.  

Great article on the top ten QBs of all time. The URL is below. Please read.

Read this entire article on great NFL QBs. Very well written.

http://tinyurl.com/a8s7sjf

Hetch

 

There really is no argument among reasonable men that Brady and Montana are the only two in the argument for GOAT QB. No others have the combined magnitude of accolades, stats and winning these two bring to that table in the modern era.

How does one choose between these two super QBs? Montana's 4-0 SB record has him ahead of Brady in that category but Brady wins in others. Montana could run but had Rice, no cap and didn't have to deal with the same free agency issues Brady has.

I would give Brady the small edge at this point, but if he wins another ring I think he puts a clear gap between him and Joe in the mind of most fair minded fans.

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

There really is no argument among reasonable men that Brady and Montana are the only two in the argument for GOAT QB. No others have the combined magnitude of accolades, stats and winning these two bring to that table in the modern era.

How does one choose between these two super QBs? Montana's 4-0 SB record has him ahead of Brady in that category but Brady wins in others. Montana could run but had Rice, no cap and didn't have to deal with the same free agency issues Brady has.

I would give Brady the small edge at this point, but if he wins another ring I think he puts a clear gap between him and Joe in the mind of most fair minded fans.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Babe, 

What do you refer to as the MODERN ERA,  Just Curious. Guess it is with the NFL-AFL merger. Sorry but the NFL of Bart Starrs era was just prior to the merger and with a 9-1 playoff record Starr far out shines both Montana and Brady. I say to helll with the modern era beginning in 1970 to use as a way of defining the best all-time in the modern era. The quality of the NFL in Starrs era was just as good as the modern era after the merger of the 70s. The AFC in at least the first few years was inferior to the NFL but caught up quickly post merger.   

Hetch

In response to Hetchinspete's comment:

 

If you folks want to go purely by stats please read the following:

First about Otto Graham with the Browns.

In fact, they'd go on to set a record that still stands, appearing in six straight NFL championship games from 1950 to 1955, winning three of them. Bottom line: Graham played in a pro football championship game every single season of his 10-year career, winning seven of them in two different leagues.

Bart Starr: 9-1 in playoff history with 5, count em 5 NFL titles in six seasons.

One could make the argument that league talent wasn't as good in the Graham or Starr days in the NFL but the same argument could be made saying the NFL talent is much better now than in Montana's day. Bottom line for me is who was the best QB of their generation and not all-time. Because just based on stats of winning Championships both Graham and Starr stand out as the best. Starr 9-1 in post season is mind boggling.  

Hetch

 

Yeah, and I'm about tick of the locals but that accomplishment is much like Bill Russell's 11 championships at a time when the NBA had 8 teams.  We're talking about a league at that time who had about a third of the teams (12).  Not only were athletes smaller but the NFL simply couldn't attract top athletes at that time.  

 

People would get drafted and choose to go work in the family business because they could make more money.  They would have second jobs while playing.   NFL team probably only had a handful of guys who were truly "professional" caliber athletes. The NFL didn't really become what we know to day in terms of popularity and salary until the 70's and even then major rule changes in the late 70's make a completely different sport where old records and statistics should really be kept separate.  

In Montana's day there were still 28 teams and athletes were making millions so the best athletes were playing, but the 50 and 60's... Those guys may have been great by today's standards but there's no way to know.  

I mean do you really think some guy could come in and play QB/RB/LB like back in the day or was it just a case of a "professional" athlete by today's standards playing with guys who would be amateurs by today's standards.

In response to Hetchinspete's comment:

Starr had LOADED teams during his career. A murderer's row of Hall of Famers; Nitchke, Taylor, Hornung, Adderly and Gregg.

Plop 5 HOFers on Brady's teams and the sky would be the limit on his dominance in the winning category.

Graham cannot even be in the conversation in the stats category, and played only 6 seasons in the NFL.

This is a great thread, one of the better ones I've read on here lately. I wanted to add one topic to the discussion that I did not see on here. Brady has consistently played great in some of the most miserable weather conditions. Comparing different era's is a tough one as the competition Montana faced was fierce except fear the end of his career. You also have to realize what Brady has done with marginal talent at the skill positions. I'll give the very slight edge to Montana but all this could change in the next few weeks. This team also has a legit shot to go back to 2-3 more Super Bowls which is pretty damn incredible when you think about it. Barring injury we will be the favorite in the AFC for the next few years.

In response to Hetchinspete's comment:

That is the one and only category Starr is even in the conversation with Brady on. He had 5 HOFers he played with. He played in a 12 team league for years, Brady in a 32. He just isn't in the same category with Brady as a QB (or Montana).

In response to shenanigan's comment:

+1

In response to jam757's comment:

+1

In response to shenanigan's comment:

 

In response to Hetchinspete's comment:

 

If you folks want to go purely by stats please read the following:

First about Otto Graham with the Browns.

In fact, they'd go on to set a record that still stands, appearing in six straight NFL championship games from 1950 to 1955, winning three of them. Bottom line: Graham played in a pro football championship game every single season of his 10-year career, winning seven of them in two different leagues.

Bart Starr: 9-1 in playoff history with 5, count em 5 NFL titles in six seasons.

One could make the argument that league talent wasn't as good in the Graham or Starr days in the NFL but the same argument could be made saying the NFL talent is much better now than in Montana's day. Bottom line for me is who was the best QB of their generation and not all-time. Because just based on stats of winning Championships both Graham and Starr stand out as the best. Starr 9-1 in post season is mind boggling.  

Hetch

 

Yeah, and I'm about tick of the locals but that accomplishment is much like Bill Russell's 11 championships at a time when the NBA had 8 teams.  We're talking about a league at that time who had about a third of the teams (12).  Not only were athletes smaller but the NFL simply couldn't attract top athletes at that time.  

 

People would get drafted and choose to go work in the family business because they could make more money.  They would have second jobs while playing.   NFL team probably only had a handful of guys who were truly "professional" caliber athletes. The NFL didn't really become what we know to day in terms of popularity and salary until the 70's and even then major rule changes in the late 70's make a completely different sport where old records and statistics should really be kept separate.  

In Montana's day there were still 28 teams and athletes were making millions so the best athletes were playing, but the 50 and 60's... Those guys may have been great by today's standards but there's no way to know.  

I mean do you really think some guy could come in and play QB/RB/LB like back in the day or was it just a case of a "professional" athlete by today's standards playing with guys who would be amateurs by today's standards.

 

You could say that about all sports. Using this reasoning. perhaps today Babe Ruth wouldn't be that good.  And what if those guys had the preparation , training, playing fields (Wash excepted), equipment & coaching (In part,  due to their predecessors) they have now? 

To wit, legendary QB Sammy Baugh, also punted, and with a then goofy ball, held the single season record (51.4 yd average in 1940, as detailed by BB on NFL.com). And despite the improvement in kickers over the decades (Punting averages are about 7 yards longer now than even in the 70s), this record still stands.