Graycap23 said:

Which is the reason why I wouldn't put him in the top 10. He was awful in
Tampa Bay. He learned behind the master Montana the art of Qb ing. He was great at it for a short time but his Tampa career was forgettable and eliminates him from being considered as one of the top 10 guys.

phunkdaddy said:

Graycap23 said:

He rode the bench behind Deberg in Tampa as well. (if my memory is correct)

Which is the reason why I wouldn't put him in the top 10. He was awful in Tampa Bay. He learned behind the master Montana the art of Qb ing. He was great at it for a short time but his Tampa career was forgettable and eliminates him from being considered as one of the top 10 guys.

I can't believe I've gotten to the point of defending Young, because I never got over the Niners trading Joe to essentially hand Young the keys.

His Tampa Bay days were pretty early in his NFL career, and he did need some polish, but (IMO) learning the game from Walsh helped him more than simply watching Montana.

The gulf between him and Montana is significant: his team only got over the hump once, couldn't beat the Cowboys and Packers in their primes, and he was beset by injuries.

But this guy played the game at a high level not "for a short time," but for the better part of a decade. He's one of the best to ever do it.

namepeace said:

phunkdaddy said:

Graycap23 said: Which is the reason why I wouldn't put him in the top 10. He was awful in Tampa Bay. He learned behind the master Montana the art of Qb ing. He was great at it for a short time but his Tampa career was forgettable and eliminates him from being considered as one of the top 10 guys.

I can't believe I've gotten to the point of defending Young, because I never got over the Niners trading Joe to essentially hand Young the keys.

His Tampa Bay days were pretty early in his NFL career, and he did need some polish, but (IMO) learning the game from Walsh helped him more than simply watching Montana.

The gulf between him and Montana is significant: his team only got over the hump once, couldn't beat the Cowboys and Packers in their primes, and he was beset by injuries.

But this guy played the game at a high level not "for a short time," but for the better part of a decade. He's one of the best to ever do it.

I agree.

kpowers said:

I thought the sportsmanship was great during most of the game....until the scruffle at the end. But even after that, Sherman shook Brady's hand after the kneel. Also, after Wilson threw the interception he kept himself composed. Brady would have been saying very bad words.

namepeace said:

Graycap23 said:

Unitas...............before my time.

I think Unitas, Graham, and Starr are always in the conversation of greatest ever.

But in my lifetime, it's Joe, and everyone else.

One thing I'll say for Brady is that his competition in the Super Bowl was probably stronger than Joe's. Brady beat the Rams and Seahawks when both were in their title windows and had won SBs. He also beat good, but not great, teams in Carolina and Philly. Those teams collectively are stronger than the teams Joe beat (2 good Bengals teams, and 2 one-trick-pony teams in Miami and Denver).

I still take Joe, though. He was undefeated in Super Bowls, was more mobile and better outside the pocket than Brady, and is the prototype for West Coast QBs. His 80's Niners were the best of a loaded conference that included title-winners in the 'Skins, Giants, Bears and other talented teams such as the Cowboys, Eagles and Vikings.

Interesting you bring up this point. I just read an article on SB Nation where they made a case for Bradshaw being the best SUPER BOWL

QB based on the competition and defenses he defeated which is subjective of course. They only made the Bradshaw vs Montana comparison. Bradshaw defeated Minnesota's Purple People Eaters and you old schoolers know that front seven led by Carl Eller and Allen Page was more ferocious than even Seattle's current front seven. Bradshaw also defeated Dallas Doomsday defense twice. The second time Bradshaw carved Dallas defense up for 4 td's and 318 yards a Super Bowl record at the time and the same Dallas defense that held the Broncos in the previous Super Bowl to 35 yards passing and got 4 int's. In Bradshaw's final Super Bowl win against the Rams he carved their defense up for 309 yards and 2td's while the Rams defense only allowed 19 points in two games prior to the Super Bowl. It was noted that Montana defeated 2 good but not great Bengals defenses and a bad Dolphins defense and a bad Broncos defense.

phunkdaddy said:

namepeace said:

I think Unitas, Graham, and Starr are always in the conversation of greatest ever.

But in my lifetime, it's Joe, and everyone else.

One thing I'll say for Brady is that his competition in the Super Bowl was probably stronger than Joe's. Brady beat the Rams and Seahawks when both were in their title windows and had won SBs. He also beat good, but not great, teams in Carolina and Philly. Those teams collectively are stronger than the teams Joe beat (2 good Bengals teams, and 2 one-trick-pony teams in Miami and Denver).

I still take Joe, though. He was undefeated in Super Bowls, was more mobile and better outside the pocket than Brady, and is the prototype for West Coast QBs. His 80's Niners were the best of a loaded conference that included title-winners in the 'Skins, Giants, Bears and other talented teams such as the Cowboys, Eagles and Vikings.

Interesting you bring up this point. I just read an article on SB Nation where they made a case for Bradshaw being the best SUPER BOWL

QB based on the competition and defenses he defeated which is subjective of course. They only made the Bradshaw vs Montana comparison. Bradshaw defeated Minnesota's Purple People Eaters and you old schoolers know that front seven led by Carl Eller and Allen Page was more ferocious than even Seattle's current front seven. Bradshaw also defeated Dallas Doomsday defense twice. The second time Bradshaw carved Dallas defense up for 4 td's and 318 yards a Super Bowl record at the time and the same Dallas defense that held the Broncos in the previous Super Bowl to 35 yards passing and got 4 int's. In Bradshaw's final Super Bowl win against the Rams he carved their defense up for 309 yards and 2td's while the Rams defense only allowed 19 points in two games prior to the Super Bowl. It was noted that Montana defeated 2 good but not great Bengals defenses and a bad Dolphins defense and a bad Broncos defense.

All true but his skill set gets CRUSHED by Elway. Pun intended.

phunkdaddy said:

Interesting you bring up this point. I just read an article on SB Nation where they made a case for Bradshaw being the best SUPER BOWL

QB based on the competition and defenses he defeated which is subjective of course. They only made the Bradshaw vs Montana comparison. Bradshaw defeated Minnesota's Purple People Eaters and you old schoolers know that front seven led by Carl Eller and Allen Page was more ferocious than even Seattle's current front seven. Bradshaw also defeated Dallas Doomsday defense twice. The second time Bradshaw carved Dallas defense up for 4 td's and 318 yards a Super Bowl record at the time and the same Dallas defense that held the Broncos in the previous Super Bowl to 35 yards passing and got 4 int's. In Bradshaw's final Super Bowl win against the Rams he carved their defense up for 309 yards and 2td's while the Rams defense only allowed 19 points in two games prior to the Super Bowl. It was noted that Montana defeated 2 good but not great Bengals defenses and a bad Dolphins defense and a bad Broncos defense.

That's a great argument for Bradshaw, especially with those Dallas teams that had won titles in their own right, and in that second game, IIRC, Dallas was going for a repeat.

I still lean towards Montana.

For all the talent he had around him. Montana only played with a handful of HOFers -- Lott, Rice, Fred Dean and now Charles Haley.

Bradshaw played with twice as many HOFers: Mike Webster, Franco Harris. Lynn Swann, Stallworth on Offense, Mel Blount, "Mean" Joe Greene, Jack Ham, Jack Lambert.

Both teams were loaded with other Pro Bowlers and talented players, but I think Bradshaw actually had a better supporting cast.

CarrieCee said:

paintedlady said:

Patriots will win.

You're a smart painted lady.

paintedlady said:

CarrieCee said:

You're a smart painted lady.

Actually Seattle LOST the game.

[Edited 2/12/15 8:30am]

Graycap23 said:

paintedlady said:

Actually Seattle LOST they game.

No. The Patriots won.

Football always has freak plays and great catches and wins... the Pats fought hard for this win and it was a great game and a deserving win, why? Because the Patriots pulled a victory out of (what many expected and desperately wanted) what seemed like a defeat, but the game wasn't over.

The Patriots won with a great play, the Pats took advantage and ended a great game with a great catch.

[Edited 2/11/15 17:36pm]

paintedlady said:

Graycap23 said:

Actually Seattle LOST they game.

No. The Patriots won.

Football always has freak plays and great catches and wins... the Pats fought hard for this win and it was a great game and a deserving win, why? Because the Patriots pulled a victory out of (what many expected and desperately wanted) what seemed like a defeat, but the game wasn't over.

The Patriots won with a great play, the Pats took advantage and ended a great game with a great catch.

[Edited 2/11/15 17:36pm]

Also, Brady is good under pressure. Even if the Seahawks scored the Patriots could have tied or won it with the 30 some odd seconds left in the game. I think they had all their time outs, or at least 2 of them.

But who cares....the Lombardi Trophy is in New England. I can't wait till we get 6 rings and stick it to Pittsburgh

paintedlady said:

Graycap23 said:

Actually Seattle LOST they game.

No. The Patriots won.

Football always has freak plays and great catches and wins... the Pats fought hard for this win and it was a great game and a deserving win, why? Because the Patriots pulled a victory out of (what many expected and desperately wanted) what seemed like a defeat, but the game wasn't over.

The Patriots won with a great play, the Pats took advantage and ended a great game with a great catch.

[Edited 2/11/15 17:36pm]

Ask anyone who has actually strapped it up on a football field.

Graycap23 said:

paintedlady said:

No. The Patriots won.

Football always has freak plays and great catches and wins... the Pats fought hard for this win and it was a great game and a deserving win, why? Because the Patriots pulled a victory out of (what many expected and desperately wanted) what seemed like a defeat, but the game wasn't over.

The Patriots won with a great play, the Pats took advantage and ended a great game with a great catch.

[Edited 2/11/15 17:36pm]

Ask anyone who has actually strapped it up on a football field.

Sexist statement. As if I don't know a thing about football.