thedangerouskitchen wrote:
What about my comments do you disagree with... and please don't sit there and say that it's not a HUGE advantage for today's QB, knowing they're not going to get crushed by a 250 pound LB leading with his helmet.
We've had these discussions with Glory Days enough for you to know the answer, troll.
Nice deflection... just admit you don't have a fucking clue, and be done with it.
Nope, not engaging your troll ego (which is all you have left anymore).
Good night, Glory Days.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
rileymartin wrote:Rob is way too good to address a troll on a troll message board...
No, just tired of TDK regurgitating the exact same shit responses anytime a player from the 80's or early 90's is brought up. Maybe if TDK had the mental capacity to make a different argument....but we all know that ain't happening.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
rileymartin wrote:Rob is way too good to address a troll on a troll message board...
No, just tired of TDK regurgitating the exact same shit responses anytime a player from the 80's or early 90's is brought up. Maybe if TDK had the mental capacity to make a different argument....but we all know that ain't happening.
There is no need for me to make a different argument when you canNot refute the arguments I already made.
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
By the way can we quit acting like Joe Montana didn't have an o-line in front of him? Tom Brady's line has been so good largely because of his elite pocket presence/maneuverability and the scheme helps out the o-line a ton.
Just a few facts to add to this conversation-- I don't think you can go wrong with either Brady or Montana, for the record...
1) The "rings" argument
-In Brady's first season as a starter, he was a game manager. No question about it. In the AFC Championship game, Bledsoe actually came in and finished the game (and threw the only passing TD for NE). As was the case all season, the Patriots' defense and ST carried the day. In the Super Bowl, Brady completed 59% of his passes for 145 yards and 1 TD. You read that right.
Montana was the 49ers best player (or, at least it was arguable) for all 4 of his Super Bowl runs. His leading rusher in '81 had less than 600 yards, and he carried his team to the title.
-Brady defeated Fox/Delhomme, Reid/McNabb, and Carroll/Wilson for his next 3 wins, and lost to Coughling/Eli twice (with inferior teams). Montana crushed Shula/Marino and Reeves/Elway (the two other great QBs of his era) on the biggest stage, and also defeated Ken Anderson and Boomer Esiason in close games (both of whom were clearly better than Delhomme and arguably better than McNabb).
On a board where the context for rings often matters, I find it interesting that "4 = 4" for the "all in" Brady crowd isn't challenged more. If "4 = 4" for Brady, then "5 = 5" for Kobe. The fact is that Brady was mostly along for the ride his first Super Bowl, took down two dramatically inferior QB's/teams for hsi next two, lost two in a row to the same inferior team, and then won his last on the worst play call ever at the goalline. If rings should be taken with context in basketball, they should be in football, as well.
2) The "Brady had no receivers" argument
-Brady has already had more seasons with Rob Gronkowski than Joe Montana had with Jerry Rice. On top of that, he also had two years with Randy Moss.
3) The "system QB" argument
-Montana had the best season of his career-- and arguably the best season of any QB ever-- in 1989...the year AFTER Walsh retired. He also took the KC Chiefs to the AFC Championship game at 38 years old. We don't know how Brady would have faired without Belichick, but we have seen in small doses how Belicheck has faired without Brady (the 11-5 Cassell year, the first 4 games this year, etc.). When nitpicking in a debate like this, these points aren't insignificant.
4) The "longevity" argument
-This is yet another reason why comparing players across eras is such a fool's errand. I know a lot of people like to play up the "good ole' days" card around here, but there's no question that the game has changed, and a major change has been that you literally can't hit QBs anymore. Brady might indeed play until he's 45 because no one is allowed to touch him. Montana took a hit in the 1990 NFC championship game that broke his collarbone and his wrist...and it wasn't a penalty.
Just thought I'd toss some of that stuff out there...
gaskill15 wrote:By the way can we quit acting like Joe Montana didn't have an o-line in front of him? Tom Brady's line has been so good largely because of his elite pocket presence/maneuverability and the scheme helps out the o-line a ton.
gaskill15 wrote:Cool. Defenders are also bigger, faster, and stronger nowadays with all the advantages they are given. Show me a Patrick Willis-like freak "back in the day".
gaskill15 wrote:Cool. Defenders are also bigger, faster, and stronger nowadays with all the advantages they are given. Show me a Patrick Willis-like freak "back in the day".
I think another factor that is overlooked in the Brady/Montana argument is the protection WR's get too...Guys like Welker would not have been nearly as effective working the middle of the field if they had to deal with guys like Kenny Easley and Steve Atwater teeing off on them...you simply cannot make a WR pay for going over the middle in today's game the way you could back in Montana's day...Another huge advantage for Brady...
gaskill15 wrote:Cool. Defenders are also bigger, faster, and stronger nowadays with all the advantages they are given. Show me a Patrick Willis-like freak "back in the day".
Lawrence Taylor?
Best defensive player at any position.
LT was great, and you cant go wrong with him, but, Deion Sanders would shut down an side of a football field....
rileymartin wrote:I think another factor that is overlooked in the Brady/Montana argument is the protection WR's get too...Guys like Welker would not have been nearly as effective working the middle of the field if they had to deal with guys like Kenny Easley and Steve Atwater teeing off on them...you simply cannot make a WR pay for going over the middle in today's game the way you could back in Montana's day...Another huge advantage for Brady...
WRs pay plenty in today's game. The defender just gets flagged for it. By the way you'll find guys who hit hard in every era. He may not have dealt with Easley but he had to deal with Brian Dawkins and Ed Reed.
rileymartin wrote:I think another factor that is overlooked in the Brady/Montana argument is the protection WR's get too...Guys like Welker would not have been nearly as effective working the middle of the field if they had to deal with guys like Kenny Easley and Steve Atwater teeing off on them...you simply cannot make a WR pay for going over the middle in today's game the way you could back in Montana's day...Another huge advantage for Brady...
I don't see how that matters. That's why you compare them against THEIR PEERS.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
rileymartin wrote:I think another factor that is overlooked in the Brady/Montana argument is the protection WR's get too...Guys like Welker would not have been nearly as effective working the middle of the field if they had to deal with guys like Kenny Easley and Steve Atwater teeing off on them...you simply cannot make a WR pay for going over the middle in today's game the way you could back in Montana's day...Another huge advantage for Brady...
I don't see how that matters. That's why you compare them against THEIR PEERS.
Are you certain that Brady compares to his peers more favorably than Montana did?
rileymartin wrote:I think another factor that is overlooked in the Brady/Montana argument is the protection WR's get too...Guys like Welker would not have been nearly as effective working the middle of the field if they had to deal with guys like Kenny Easley and Steve Atwater teeing off on them...you simply cannot make a WR pay for going over the middle in today's game the way you could back in Montana's day...Another huge advantage for Brady...
I don't see how that matters. That's why you compare them against THEIR PEERS.
Are you certain that Brady compares to his peers more favorably than Montana did?
I'm quite certain he compares AT LEAST as favorably as Montana does.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
My guess would be that Montana was noticeably better than Brady (peer to peer) at the start of their respective careers, but Brady was superior at the back end.
Taking a break from the board. Please reference my last post for more details if you are interested.
