ESPN Loves Brady: #1 Greatest Super Bowl Player in History!

[sonnyblack65]

I admit...I had to look at this one again.....OK..ok....you put Brady #1. Sure, whatever. But Troy Aikman ahead of Joe Montana? Surely someone is pretty desperate for reads, so you might as well go full stupid. For greatest SB performer ever, why not just put Montana somewhere between Rex Grossman and Left Shark? That'll get em clicking.

Ricky your 100% Montana and Brady 1# and #2 can flip them. I would put Elway a little higher 5 SB's and the first 3 playing the NFC when it was a clear mismatch

 

[Ricky Roma]

Ricky your 100% Montana and Brady 1# and #2 can flip them. I would put Elway a little higher 5 SB's and the first 3 playing the NFC when it was a clear mismatch

Actually...I personally don't think you can flip Montana with Brady at all. Perhaps with the criteria used in the link one could, but I didn't stick around to read said criteria, because by no logical reasons can anybody put Aikman over Montana.

 

[sonnyblack65]

Actually...I personally don't think you can flip Montana with Brady at all. Perhaps with the criteria used in the link one could, but I didn't stick around to read said criteria, because by no logical reasons can anybody put Aikman over Montana.

IMO you can because in a FA era ,to go to 6 SB's and 10 AFCG is much better than 4SB's and 7 NFCG. SF had a much better team . The year before Brady 5-11 and then they missed the playoffs when he was out in 08. Now before last years SB win I had Montana as the GOAT and have no problem with people still keeping him as #1

 

[Ricky Roma]

IMO you can because in a FA era ,to go to 6 SB's and 10 AFCG is much better than 4SB's and 7 NFCG. SF had a much better team . The year before Brady 5-11 and then they missed the playoffs when he was out in 08. Now before last years SB win I had Montana as the GOAT and have no problem with people still keeping him as #1

It's easier to go to that many SB's and CG's in this era if you are a premier QB simply because of FA and the salary cap + the fact that the game is as QB-oriented as it is right now. All things average...put a great QB on a team in this era, and the advantage is off the charts.

As for SB performers...I have to assume this list is based on performances in those games. Per game basis:

Montana: 20.75 comp. 30.5 att. 68.0 comp.% 285.5 yards 2.75 TD's. 0.00 ints. 127.8 QB rating.

Brady: 27.3 comp. 41.2 att. 66.4 comp. % 267.5 yards. 2.17 TD's, 0.66 ints. 95.3 QB rating.

Now there will always be little tidbits for and against either set of numbers but I don't think anything outweighs the fact that Montana did that in an era where passing is far more difficult than in Brady's era...especially during Brady's last 3 SB performances, where the overall NFL passing numbers are downright stupid.

Pure and simple, I don't think there is any doubt that Montana really does kill Brady when it comes to playoff performances, and especially in SB play.

 

[PDay8810]

because by no logical reasons can anybody put Aikman over Montana.

couldn't agree more...I don't even put Aikman ahead of Staubach.

Joe Cool remains the best ever.

funny the two best were a 3rd rounder and 6th rounder

 

[Ricky Roma]

couldn't agree more...I don't even put Aikman ahead of Staubach.

Joe Cool remains the best ever.

funny the two best were a 3rd rounder and 6th rounder

Yeah...I'd take Staubach over Aikman...quiet easily actually. I consider Roger one of the true all time greats.

 

[Breed]

It's easier to go to that many SB's and CG's in this era if you are a premier QB.

Really? Where are Rodgers, Brees' and Rivers multiple SB appearances? Some would include Romo is that bunch as well.

 

[Ricky Roma]

Really? Where are Rodgers, Brees' and Rivers multiple SB appearances? Some would include Romo is that bunch as well.

I said it was easier...not that it's an absolute. Rodgers and Brees both have Super Bowl rings. Dan Marino and Dan Fouts do not. Rivers? In the same conference as Brady and Manning....good luck. While the QB position has always been the most important, it's never been more centric to determine wins and losses as it is in today's era.

 

[Ojb81]

Understand, but their rating each MVP by the game the won A MVP, their not grouping all MVPs, and for my money Bradshaw is one of the most overrated players ever.

Lol, i figured those scars bradshaw inflicted upon your 'boys from the 70's wouldve healed by now, but I guess not. You want an overrated superbowl mvp? Larry Brown.

 

[Breed]

I said it was easier...not that it's an absolute. Rodgers and Brees both have Super Bowl rings. Dan Marino and Dan Fouts do not. Rivers? In the same conference as Brady and Manning....good luck. While the QB position has always been the most important, it's never been more centric to determine wins and losses as it is in today's era.

Marino played in 3 AFCCGs and Fouts played in 2. I'd opine that both would've been better served far as winning those game and a SB. If their teams had looked to get even slightly better defensively instead of always trying to re-load the offenses.

And as far as the Chargers go on that front. Many former Chargers players from that era seem to believe that trading away DE Fred Dean is what doomed them from getting over the hump.

 

[Breed]

Terry Bradshaw's job was to not fuck anything up in those first 2 Super Bowls Pitt won. He was a freakin stud and a righteous SB MVP in those last two SBs Pitt won.

 

[sonnyblack65]

I said it was easier...not that it's an absolute. Rodgers and Brees both have Super Bowl rings. Dan Marino and Dan Fouts do not. Rivers? In the same conference as Brady and Manning....good luck. While the QB position has always been the most important, it's never been more centric to determine wins and losses as it is in today's era.

Fouts played his entire career in the FA era and Marino 1/2 than half. Teams like the 70;s Steelers and 80's 49's had pretty much the same players and gelled. In the top players of all time SF had the 3 of the top 11 players of all-time Rice,Montana and Lott.

 

[Ricky Roma]

Fouts played his entire career in the FA era and Marino 1/2 than half. Teams like the 70;s Steelers and 80's 49's had pretty much the same players and gelled. In the top players of all time SF had the 3 of the top 11 players of all-time Rice,Montana and Lott.

Fouts retired in 1987. FA started in 1993. Marino himself was not nearly as good in the FA era as he was prior.

 

[Breed]

Fouts played his entire career in the FA era and Marino 1/2 than half. Teams like the 70;s Steelers and 80's 49's had pretty much the same players and gelled. In the top players of all time SF had the 3 of the top 11 players of all-time Rice,Montana and Lott.

Speaking of Lott. They never give much love to those 9er defenses of that era, but they were always stout.

 

[sonnyblack65]

Fouts retired in 1987. FA started in 1993. Marino himself was not nearly as good in the FA era as he was prior.

My bad meant to say in the not FA era for Fouts and Marino only half his career. It's a lot more competitive now as long as you have a very good/elite QB,D and coach. Having said that, Monta was great going to 4 SB's and not throwing any picks. Obviously with Pitt , it wasn't the case with Bradshaw

 

[redseat]

When you typed ESPN that's all I needed to know how ignorant you are. Nothing more then talking heads that brainwash simple minds like yourself. Pathetic. Peace.

You do realize this is a tongue and cheek post..... Man.... Lay off the orange crush will ya

 

[redseat]

it's from ESPN.... it doesn't have ANY credibility to begin with

Guess you missed this post too @Malibu