He was mediocre when the Patriots won 3 times in 4 seasons. Joe Montana played against much better competition just to get to the Super Bowl in the form of the Chicago Bears and New York Giants. Montana is way ahead in terms of "clutch".
NFL 2016
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
He was mediocre when the Patriots won 3 times in 4 seasons. Joe Montana played against much better competition just to get to the Super Bowl in the form of the Chicago Bears and New York Giants. Montana is way ahead in terms of "clutch".
He is a great talent. I hope he doesn't spend his career like Elway did with Reeves. Reeves isn't a bad guy, but he isn't much for figuring out how to score points.
Yes, stat wise. Win wise, he was spectacular. It doesn't matter if his QB rating was under 60. He won. Almost all the time. I . . . I was a New England fan growing up. I stomached the 1-15. I still had hope. A fan is a fan, short for fanatic. When Bledsoe arrived, me and the the rest of Patriot Nation were extremely excited, and when we finally got to the SB against GB, it was a painful defeat, but we relished the fact that, #1, Brett Favre said that Drew Bledsoe was "already" a great QB, and two, that Ted Johnson was praised during the SB for being the awesome LB that he indeed was, but, because he played in NE, nobody would ever know about this romance-novel-reading monster ILB. It was a miracle season even with the crushing loss against Favre and White and . . . who was that Michigan guy? Howard. 99-yard punt return for crying out loud! A great Boston sports writer calls the NE market a "hoo-ha" football town. We're a bunch of hopeless romantics when it comes to football. And now, because of Brady, many NE fans have just taken to being, humbly, quote-unquote "spoiled." We don't care what happens the rest of Brady's career, because he is a gift from God above to us. We suffered and we won, and we won because Tom Brady, and I don't think people understand the importance of this man to our fanbase. It's absolutely the same level as Montana. Montana was injured, and Brady was done early. They'll all have their excuses, the great ones.
brewmama
New member
You know what else isn't right? It's Von Miller!
It does though, if you're using the win as a metric for his greatness.To be clear, I think he developed into an all-time great. But take Vinatieri out of New England and at least two of those early SBs are unlikely.
I really feel like you're lobbing me a softball here. Vinatieri didn't and couldn't get himself into his own FG range. Brady had to, and did, do that. Each of those critical FGs were well within his longest. He should have made them. Yes, it is really important that he did, and it is really important that he did not not, much like how it was very important that Gostkowski did not make his PAT in the AFCC. This guy's got better stats than did Vinatieri. He is much more automatic than Adam ever was. But now he's shown he's no Vinatieri. I guess I'm making your point for you. If Gostkowski hit that PAT, we might be talking about Brady's recently acquired/earned fifth ring, which of course would vault him above J.M.
Last edited:
You must have forgotten he had to nail one about fifty yards out to win the first ring and a not dissimilar distance on the second with around four seconds on the clock. So a good qb got them within distance for a great clutch kicker to have a shot at pulling out a win. He did similar magic to get them in position for the early wins in a few playoff games.
It's called prevent defense and even then the distance left under that sort of pressure would have been as good as a bat down for most.
There's a reason why most people don't put up their best numbers in the post season. Adam does. Two really long kicks under extraordinary pressure.
Rather, HE was the sort of kicker who could. The sort who may be a first ballot HOF inductee for a position that rarely gets consideration. You can soft sell it, but the truth is that Brady, great as he is now, was only darn good then and had one of the best save your bacon kickers in the history of the NFL in his prime to help begin that legacy.
See: Saraceno, Joe (January 18, 2010). "Best decade ever by a kicker? Adam Vinatieri ruled the 2000s". usatoday.com.
:thumb:
And if Seattle had made the right coaching call he'd still be holding onto the early wins.
Well, no. Joe never lost one, let alone two and let alone two to inferior teams, which those Giant teams were. He never threw a pick in the SB and he drove to win with tds in the end zone. Brady is a great one. Peyton is a great one. Heck, if it wasn't for those two we'd be talking about how great Brees is more often. But in the pantheon of the great there's never been another Joe Cool.
Joe's SB rating at his position
1. 100.0
2. 127.2
3. 115.2
4. 147.6
Brady's:
1. 86.2
2. 100.5
3. 110.2
4. 82.5
5. 91.1
6. 101.1
In other words, two of those appearances, including his first ring, were decent but unremarkable play from the position. The lower of the two is nothing to write home about. Doesn't mean he wasn't and isn't a great qb, but he wasn't in those two games. He contributed. His nest two are about on par with Joe's worst SB performance. The 91 was a solid, impressive effort. The next two moving just below his best SB would have ranked about even with Joe's bottom rung and Brady's best SB performance would place next to last on Joe's ladder.
Joe has two of eight of the highest ratings in SB history (2nd and 7th). Brady isn't on that list.
In the biggest game, no one had Joe's string. No one comes close.
And what do you think that matters? None. Nothin.' What matters is rings. That's why it's the Lombardi trophy, he won a lot. That's why the rings matter. So Joe dazzled, he certainly did. But he won four. Like Brady. And Archie now. Four. That's the number. We're speculating and nitpicking and arguing fruitlessly beyond that number four. That's the only number that matters, else the trophy'd be called after someone else.
Do you think it matters that Peyton's second was in the 50s?
Of course it doesn't. Two, is his number. How many picks do you think Brady would have thrown against that Denver team (Joe's Denver opponent), by the way, or Manning (either) for that matter? And Miami? What a joke. Please, Lord, let Brady's next SB opponent be either of those teams.
Depends on the person approaching and the goal. If you're a homer for someone or some organization it won't impact you. If you're interested in the facts it should...I'm not an NFC guy, never rooted for Joe or the Niners and he's not my favorite qb. But I can approach him objectively and understand who and what he was/is to the game.
Well, no. Which is why no one says that Trent Dilfer is a better quarterback than Dan Marino. It's why Bill Russel isn't at the top of anyone's all time greatest list.
He won fewer SBs than a handful of coaches. But he was a great coach and he won the first two.
No, not like Brady. Better than Brady did, which was the point of the numbers, of noting his lack of interceptions, etc. He had to go through tougher defensive teams that played by rules that weren't skewed in favor of offensive play and protecting wrs and qbs.
It depends on what you're trying to make from it. What I'd say about Peyton is that he did enough to help his team win and that his performance off the bench locked up home field, that he did a fantastic job against the Pats in the Championship game, where he holds a 3 to 1 advantage over Brady and company. But it's a team sport. Rings and wins are rarely the province of the individual.
I don't think Peyton or Brady would have looked like themselves playing in Joe's day, before the rules handicapped defenses and protected quarterbacks. I think Joe would love to play in the new NFL.
And the Niners faced tougher opponents to get to that SB. The Miami team you're laughing at averaged about 30 pts a game and gave up 14 on defense (7th stingiest in giving up points). That Denver team, with a catchy nickname, was the best in the league that year until Joe got a hold of them. The two Bengals teams were the weaker opponents on defense, but they matched up well and gave the Niners fits.
First of all, since when does being a fan make one's view necessarily in and of itself ipso facto invalid? 
I relish being a Pats fan. I'm sorry you don't feel the same about your boyhood/hometown team.
I relish being a Pats fan. I'm sorry you don't feel the same about your boyhood/hometown team.I refuse to accept "coincidence," as the explanation when championships and individuals are highly correlated. It's just not true. Professional sports are just too competitive to believe in coincidence.
It's not since but at what point. The answer would be whenever you find your belief at odds with what an objective examination of the facts. So it isn't inherent, but the farther out on the fan limb a person goes the more likely a distortion of valuation will occur.First of all, since when does being a fan make one's view necessarily in and of itself ipso facto invalid?
Don't have a team in the state. I've rooted for core groups since I was a kid. I've been rooting for the Colts since Harbaugh was the qb. I don't believe that rooting for a team has to rob me of my ability to judge fairly.
I haven't argued coincidence.
I said I get it now. Thanks again.
Ah, didn't know if you were being serious. In any event, enjoy the last years of a great one and, at some point we're going to have to speak to your underestimating your coach. :think:
Oh, as soon as I see my own error, I'll let you know, no matter how abrupt it seems in the grand scheme of things. Psychological momentum is one of the worst cognitive errors from which we suffer.
I don't think I'm underestimating his intelligence and cleverness, but maybe his ego.
Take a look at Joe's old coach, Bill Walsh. He was literally jealous of his qb and the praise Montana got, even though most pundits lauded Walsh vociferously.I don't think I'm underestimating his intelligence and cleverness, but maybe his ego.
Enjoy this excerpt from an experienced writer on the new combination of Walsh and Montana.
The San Francisco Times
September 23rd, 1981
I’m not here to tell you that Bill Walsh is a bad coach. And I’m not here to tell you that Joe Montana can’t possibly succeed in the NFL. It’s just that if they want to still be here in two years, some changes are in order.
Walsh comes from the great Paul Brown coaching tree, and like his mentor, Walsh likes to throw the ball. That strategy, while unconventional, can work well when you have a Hall of Famer like Otto Graham or even a great talent like Ken Anderson. It doesn’t work when you have a scrappy young player like Montana...
Maybe somebody should tell The Genius that San Francisco could have benefited from more runs and fewer passes.
The man who thinks he’s the smartest person in every room surely was going to learn from his 1979 failures, right? In 1980, Montana was handed the reins. How did he do? Walsh continued with his horizontal offense: Montana completed 64.5% of his passes, the 4th highest by a quarterback in NFL history (behind the great Ken Stabler and two Brown robots, Anderson and Graham). But the team went just 2-5 in Montana’s starts.
...After two years, some were ready to say the results are in: at 8-24, the 49ers have the worst record of any team since Walsh came to town. Is it all his fault? No, this team was bad when he came here, and I think he’s done some good things. But the outside-the-box thinker needs to get with the tradition of pro football if he wants to win. I thought that was going to happen this year. Sadly, I’m afraid I may be mistaken...
September 23rd, 1981
I’m not here to tell you that Bill Walsh is a bad coach. And I’m not here to tell you that Joe Montana can’t possibly succeed in the NFL. It’s just that if they want to still be here in two years, some changes are in order.
Walsh comes from the great Paul Brown coaching tree, and like his mentor, Walsh likes to throw the ball. That strategy, while unconventional, can work well when you have a Hall of Famer like Otto Graham or even a great talent like Ken Anderson. It doesn’t work when you have a scrappy young player like Montana...
Maybe somebody should tell The Genius that San Francisco could have benefited from more runs and fewer passes.
The man who thinks he’s the smartest person in every room surely was going to learn from his 1979 failures, right? In 1980, Montana was handed the reins. How did he do? Walsh continued with his horizontal offense: Montana completed 64.5% of his passes, the 4th highest by a quarterback in NFL history (behind the great Ken Stabler and two Brown robots, Anderson and Graham). But the team went just 2-5 in Montana’s starts.
...After two years, some were ready to say the results are in: at 8-24, the 49ers have the worst record of any team since Walsh came to town. Is it all his fault? No, this team was bad when he came here, and I think he’s done some good things. But the outside-the-box thinker needs to get with the tradition of pro football if he wants to win. I thought that was going to happen this year. Sadly, I’m afraid I may be mistaken...
The final regular season game of 2007 was between NE and GIA. Meaningless game for both since the outcome didn't alter the seedings. GIA came in with a full head of steam, which seemed to catch the Pats off guard, and then they played the game as if it were the SB, which as I said, it was not in the slightest bit. Coughlin was able to get Belichick to play his trick cards, that every clever coach has, that they keep up their sleeve for just such an occasion as needing to ice a SB, or survive to the next tournament round, or just make the playoffs at all. And it wasn't the SB, and it wasn't any of those other things. Coughlin cracked Belichick's code, IOW, because Bill just had to be 16-0 going into the tournament that year. He just had to. What were the odds that he'd have to face Coughlin again that season? Slim to none, but as it turns out, and as we all know, the long shot long odds underdogs prevailed and they did have to face Coughlin again, and the single worst 18-1 season ever was our sad result.
A similar error in strategy occurred this past season when NYJ and NE played in December to OT. Coach Belichick opted to kick after winning the toss. That decision rendered his team less likely to secure the #1 seed, which rendered them vulnerable to having to play in Denver for the AFCC, which happened. This lowered their chances of securing a SB berth, which a hasty survey of history confirms; NE plays poorly in Denver, no matter the conditions. And this time around, why didn't he have his team arrive in the mile-high city much earlier in the week than right before the game? What possible advantage is there to having his team acclimating to the lower pressure air during the game?
Maybe he's not intelligent or clever; I just think that he is; and that his ego blinds him sometimes from making the most common, "best practices" decisions. These poor choices put his team and his QB in positions that are---for no good reason---more difficult to win in, than had he just made the conventionally wise decisions, instead of trying to be so clever. Let the GIA win in week 17 that year. Receive in OT when you win the toss. Arrive in Denver on Monday or Tuesday, if not Sunday; let your human beings adjust to the thinner air for a while before sending them out against that monstrous defense (with which we matched them blow-for-blow).
Walsh may have been jealous of Montana, but did he set him up to fail?
So I take it from you plain face that you don't find it interesting.So Manning out played Brady this year. Interesting.
Yes. Manning got the ring. Not Brady. Good for him. Rings matter.
- Status