SJ, settle a debate for me. Montana or Brady?

Not to nit-pick, but the throw sucked and Clark made a great catch of a ball Montana had no hope of completing (smart to throw it away; smarter yet to throw it in Clark's direction). That's why it's called "the catch" and not "the throw." That's Clark's career moment and Montana gets way too much credit for that play.

I'd say Montana's defining NFL moment is his drive against Cincinnati to win the only SB that he needed real defensive help to win.

Montana certainly was as arrogant as Brady seems but he also seemed to be a much more likable guy. Brady seems to have really gone big-time.

As far as AAFC/NFL championship QBs go, however, nobody touches Otto Graham.

And as far as Brady losing a SB, isn't that one on his defense? He gave them a late lead they couldn't protect.

 

Indeed. It's kind of like Colt McCoy against Texas Tech last year. He led the Horns to the go-ahead score very late, but the defense couldn't stop Harrell and Crabtree in the final minute.

If Texas wins that and runs the table, who's to say McCoy doesn't win the Heisman?

 

Those Falcons matched up with the 49ers about as badly as a team can.

 

You're wrong on that play. Yes, it is not known as "The Throw", and it was a great catch. But Montana's pass on "The Catch" was a perfect pass. He threw it falling back and put it where only his receiver could get to it or nobody could. He gets credit for the throw because so many other qbs will throw it up with no purpose and watch it get picked off. That's not the case here. He threw that pass with a purpose and it paid off.

 

What about Favre?

 

Nobody should be burying Brady yet. It's going to take him some time to come all the way back.

He isn't on Montana's level right now. They are a little tough to compare because the game has changed quite a bit.

I agree regarding Bradshaw and Aikman. Bradshaw was a completely different type of quarterback than Montana or Brady. Actually, if you want a current guy that compares to him, it's Roethlisberger, because so much of what he does isn't pretty.

Bradshaw did play half of his career before the NFL changed the rules to open up the passing game in the late '70s, but he still threw as many interceptions as touchdowns in his career. Easily a Hall of Famer, but nowhere close to Brady or Montana.

Give me any of those guys over Aikman any time on any team.

 

I don't know, I wouldn't downplay Aikman so much. He was really good.

 

With one of the most productive running backs in NFL history, a Hall of Fame wide receiver and a dominant offensive line, and he was still more efficient than dominant. His career high in touchdown passes was 23. That was the only time he threw for more than 20 touchdowns in a season.

I understand that was because they got so many of their touchdowns on the ground, but that doesn't mean you can give Aikman credit for what he would have done had the Cowboys opened it up more. Very good player. Don't really have a big problem with him being in the Hall of Fame. But far, far away from guys like Montana or Brady.

 

Troy Aikman is on the very short list of the most overrated players in the history of the sport.

An average guy lifted up by a dynastic surrounding cast. The Cowboys would have won three Super Bowls with Chad Hutchinson at QB.

 

I'll take Montana. He won Super Bowls with virtually three different teams over 9 seasons.

 

well then, some third-string hack could've led the steel curtain to 4 super bowl titles. bradshaw was just taking snaps, and everything just fell into place because of the dynastic convergence of the hall of famers at every position.

i think it's unfair to discount aikman because dallas was loaded. every dynasty is loaded.

dieter brock doesn't win super bowls with those cowboys, just like (whoever brian sipe's back-up was) doesn't win super bowls with the steelers of yore. i'd put aikman up against brady any day (without using the stats as the end-all barometer).