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

btw, i only used sipe's backup as an example because any backup's name would've sufficed. i always liked brian sipe, and it was the same era.

for argument's sake, you can use bradshaw's backup, whoever it was. same goes for dieter brock, the equivalent to hutchinson, even though brock started for the rams.

 

Except Aikman's numbers were never that impressive despite playing with the current, pass-friendly rules his entire career and an offensive supporting cast that was even better than Bradshaw's. Even the best offense Brady ever had around him was not as good as what Aikman had for most of his career.

It isn't just about statistics. Brady has also come up with some huge clutch drives in big games. He has done more with less than Aikman did. All things being equal, you are more than welcome to have Aikman while I take Brady. You'll lose, but if it makes you happy, go for it.

Regarding Aikman and Bradshaw, they were different players from different eras. To me, Aikman was never more than very good.

 

Terry Bradshaw sucks.

(I'm sorry, but OOP and I are way too agreeable on this, I gotta change it up)

How many of Brady's skill players are going to the HOF? None. Not even Moss, since he's a dog.

 

obviously, i'd take any of the 4 we've talked about today. you're right about aikman: his numbers weren't earth shattering. but the fucker won. he still had to move the team, and he did.

steve young had some great talent around him. check: he had hall of fame talent around him. he had to wait his turn, sure, but he still only won it once. young was as good as any qb the last 20 years. so how come he didn't win more?

that's why i say it's unfair to discount aikman, because he still moved the offense when it counted most.

 

I give the edge to Brady simply because, regardless of the situation, I have faith that if he has the ball in his hands with two minutes left and needs to score, he can do it. With Montana, I feel like he needs to have quality receivers around him to do it.

 

I admit, without a shadow of a doubt, that my youth probably makes me incapable of being objective in this discussion. I didn't grow up with Montana dominating the league's defenses. Perhaps that taints my perspective.

That being said, can you debate his ability to get the ball down field in a clutch situation?

 

Brady's? No. I've been a fan since he was at Meeech-egan. I don't doubt his abilities in any way.

But you're seriously, seriously, seriously -- seriously? -- underestimating Montana if you think Brady is in any way superior in the clutch.

Montana was the best.

(And I hate the argument that youth doesn't allow you to have perspective. Get some.)

 

I'll take Montana, Bradshaw and Aikman ahead of Brady.

 

Montana's the only one of that group I think can reasonably be taken ahead of Brady ... and it's still pretty close between the two. Aikman or Bradshaw? NOT. A. CHANCE.

 

Agreed on all points, except for the part about being a Brady fan since he was at Michigan. Saying you would choose Brady over Montana because of his ability to produce in the clutch is like saying you would choose Carl Crawford over Rickey Henderson for his ability to steal bases.

 

I'd like to hear the argument for this one, too. Even as a Steelers fanboy, I don't see how anybody would take Bradshaw over Brady.

 

Young is comparable to Aikman because he also needed great talent around him to produce. That said, his numbers were better.

I didn't discount Aikman entirely. I just said he isn't on the level with Montana or Brady, who have the rings and the numbers, and that I think Bradshaw was better, too. That last part is much tougher to measure because of the different eras they played in and the differences between the two teams they played for.