like ot see 2 more sb obviously for brady.

but montana's 4-0 super bowl record needs to have parenthesis 

(not counting the no cap, eddie d gangster $ era)

Parenthesis for what?

In response to dapats1281's comment:

compared to brady.

he lost 3 championships BEFORE SUPER BOWLS 

comopared to brady's 1

and was 1 and done 4 times to bradys 2

good stats, bredbru.

Here's the link:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MontJo01_playoffs.htm

 

Is this about comparing Montana and Brady?

Taking out records, Montana still has 4 championships to Brady's 3. If Brady wins it this year, then I think you can make a good debate for either side.

I'll say this about Montana though. He has a higher passer rating than Brady in the playoffs. In an era where the average passer rating was much lower, that is extremely impressive.

Doesn't Brady have 3? The Jets, Ravens and Broncos? 

I also find it funny how three of his losses were to the Giants.

 

They seem to have a knack of beating great QBs...unfortunately for us and SF

In response to 49Patriots' comment:

They beat the Jags before losing to the Broncos

Nope, they beat the Jaguars that year. My bad. 

In response to dapats1281's comment:

Thanks, I checked after I posted that. =) 

If the Pats win this year, TB will be 19-6 in the playoffs with 4 SB wins.  Montana with be 16-7 with 4 SB wins that fact that two of TB's losses come in the SB adds to his legacy.  He will also be 6-1 in the AFCCG to Joe's 4-3.  When you hear Negative Nancy's like Rusty say Montana never lost a SB don't listen to it it doesn't matter.  You have to look at the big picture, how many QBs in this league would give their left nut just to get to the big show.  Sit back and enjoy there will never be another Tom Brady.  All these hybird QBs would last 5 years if they don't learn pocket presence and protect themselves.

In response to dapats1281's comment:

they have a knack for luck

Back in Montanas day the NFC championship game was the real SB. The actual superbowl wasnt much of a game because the NFC was so much stronger than the AFC back then. 

Best post of bredbrus 2 year 10,000 post career.

In response to pats-fan-2007's comment:

thanks o7

In response to dapats1281's comment:

good stuff yes

In response to TrueChamp's comment:

 

Best post of bredbrus 2 year 10,000 post career.

 

love your posts when they are positive to our brother/sisters on the board.

 

all the montana hype is overrated. brady is better  than montana was imo, sure i'll get slammed for saying that but montana played in an era where he could keep the best players around him all the time. when he didn't have them he lost. brady has won with much less talent. even though i'm a homer i still would take brady over any other qb , all time. 

In response to Tomhab's comment:

yeah good point, and montana played at a time when the nfc was much better than the afc. didn't the nfc win like 13 superbowls in a row?

In response to sporter81's comment:

And that might explain the NFC championship losses and one and dones...

Both are great QBs, I'd probably rank them 1 and 2 all time right now.

But if you're going to debate, you can't just have one sided arguments. 

NFC was much stronger than the AFC. Competing to get to the Super Bowl was tougher than it was to actually win the Super Bowl.

FA era does make a difference. But if I'm not mistaken, it helped the Pats in some areas too. Vrabel, Harrison, Colvin, Ted Washington, Phifer, Welker (It was a trade but it all happened because he became a restricted FA), etc. So for every Asante, Green, Milloy, Law,etc they lost...you forget that FA played a large part in the Pats success.

Point is, everyone went through FA. So other teams lost their best players too. Not like the Pats were the only ones to lose great players. Might even be able to argue that FA has helped sustain the Pats success.

Also, statistically, Montana was much better in his championship and Super Bowl games than Brady. Again, can't take this in a vacuum because Brady didn't have much to work with until 2007, but those are still the stats. 

Both had 5 multi int games in the playoffs. But if you want to put more importance on when it happens, Montana only has 1 multi int game in conference/Super Bowl games while Brady had 3 in such games.

 

You got to put aside homerism when discussing all time greatness! Montana is still the man because of the 4 Super Bowls. If Brady wins, then I think you can make the debate. That 07 loss stings, considering how well that team played all season long. I'm not going to hold last seasons super bowl against Brady. I think it should help his argument. That defense had no business making the Super Bowl. That team doesn't get homefield advantage or maybe even the bye without Brady

In response to dapats1281's comment:

"I'm not going to hold last seasons super bowl against Brady. I think it should help his argument. That defense had no business making the Super Bowl. That team doesn't get homefield advantage or maybe even the bye without Brady"

agreed

Folks please dont forget in each of Bradys two super bowl losses he gave his team the lead in the waning minutes and had the team in position to win! In both cases the Defense gave up drives to lose t. Yes Brady got the ball back but needing to go 80 yards in 30 seconds isn't realistic.

In response to Quagmire3's comment:

That's not forgotten. But don't forget that he doesnt make super Bowl 42 without that defense bailing him in the Chargers game. Sterling Moore also saved him from losing last years Championship as well. Bledsoe and Troy Brown in his first AFC championship...

It works both ways. He has saved the defense, the defense has saved him.

I like this thread insofar as it proves that you can find (or invent) whatever statistic you need to bolster whatever point you are trying to make.

I like it less in that it is trying to compare apples to oranges . . .   and more than that . . .  I don't really care who is "better."

When Joe Montana was ruling the NFL, my team (and yours) was not only bad, but a running joke. I knew I respected Joe Montans because I always rooted against him (not that it was ever my favorite  team playing against him) . . .  in much the way the people who resent the success of the Brady era Patriots root against him and them.

Here's an analogy that won't make any sense:

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't touch Angelina Jolie with nitrile gloves . . .  but I still think it might be pretty cool to be Brad Pitt for a day or two.

Look: In the final analysis, it doesn't matter who won more Super Bowls or lost more conference championships or threw more interceptions or contracted more social diseases from Angelina Jolie . . .

The point is in the entertainment of the generation.

Does it bother me that the guy who was supposed to be my hero (Jim Plunkett) ended  up becoming famous ( years later) with the team that screwed my  heroes out of their only legitimate Super Bowl shot what seems like a hundred years ago?

Well . . .     yes . . .    yes, it does.

But do I feel better when it occurs to me that my grandchildren will be comparing their guy to Tom Brady (and not Joe Montana)?

 

Yup!

 

I most surely do.