ChiefsFanatic |
12-30-2018 11:57 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix
(Post 13998025)
This debate is the only time that a player is REWARDED for LOSING in a conference championship game.
And the NFC trounced the AFC EVERY freaking year back then. It was a joke. And everyone who was around to watch then knew it. The actual Super Bowl was the NFCCG every damn year, and the SB was just a beat down most of the time.
But somehow that means Montana > Brady.
You realize that Brady's W-L differential is more than Montana's TOTAL wins, including all losses?
I'm fine with picking Montana over Brady based on whatever you saw, if you watched. Montana was more mobile, etc. etc. But this whole 4-0 in SBs thing, while ignoring NFCCG losses like 49-3.
Brady's playoff winning percentage is higher than Montana's.
Meh, whatever. It's not really a debate that can be "answered" so take your choice. I loved Montana and think he was great too. Whether it's 1-2 or 2-1, whatever.
|
I know you believe Brady is the best, as I suspect every single Pats fan living or dead does, and you should, because that's your team.
But I do not believe that Brady is a better QB than Montana. Sorry. I don't believe he is better than Rodgers. Sorry. I think he is the greatest winner in the history of the NFL. Maybe you think that I am being insulting, but calling him the best winner to ever play football is meant as a compliment.
I remember watching the NFC dominate the AFC in the SB every year. The uneven balance of power does not diminish Montana's greatness in the Super Bowl. He didn't have a say in who the 49ers played. What he did was play nearly perfect, mistake free football on the biggest stage, against the best team from the AFC. 16 TDs against 0 INTs.
What Brady has done, appearing in 8 Super Bowls, winning 5 of them, will probably never happen again. But, judging who the best QB in NFL history is subjective, and I pick Montana.
Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk
|