**Super Bowl LI ** Brady v Ryan - Who Ya Be Takin'?

[IndyColtsFan]

I don't agree. Hell there's 80 MILLION more people in the US now than there was in 1980. But the reality is that kids are getting into sports much earlier than ever and fundamentals are being trained at a much earlier age. Organized play is starting much earlier and the competition is crazy. If you look at pure statistics combine numbers over the last decade obliterate things of previous decades. Physical merit doesn't always translate to ability but I think that's more of a function of early exit from college to pros. And that's not limited to the NFL. The NBA has the same problem.

Doesn't matter - it is simple math and is always a concern raised whenever a league expands. Note I'm not DIRECTLY comparing a player from 2016 to a player from 1986 - what I'm making is a relative comparison. If you have a league with 10 teams with 50 players each and a league with 20 teams with 50 players each, the smaller league is going to have the higher quality teams on average.

If you dropped 4 teams from today's NFL, the other 28 teams would have better rosters as a result because they'd pick up the great/good players from those closed teams and then drop the lesser players on their teams.

 

[vi edit]

Doesn't matter - it is simple math and is always a concern raised whenever a league expands. Note I'm not DIRECTLY comparing a player from 2016 to a player from 1986 - what I'm making is a relative comparison. If you have a league with 10 teams with 50 players each and a league with 20 teams with 50 players each, the smaller league is going to have the higher quality teams on average.

If you dropped 4 teams from today's NFL, the other 28 teams would have better rosters as a result because they'd pick up the great/good players from those closed teams and then drop the lesser players on their teams.

In a vacuum, sure. But we don't live in one. Our population grows and our youth are curated at a younger age to be specialized athletes.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

few things wrong here:
1) Montana made Rice an All-Pro? Are you sure it wasn't just as much the other way around? Rice was unbelievable and this is a laughable statement

Rice was an exceptional talent, but to pretend Montana had no part in him flourishing in the NFL is nuts. And yes, he did help Montana flourish as well, but you're missing a very big point - Montana was already an All Pro before Rice was ever in the league and had also already won 2 Super Bowls. Can you name any of Montana's receivers before Rice was drafted? I can and they were decent but not HOFers.

2) You say Brady had talent and name Welker, same as above, don't you think Brady made Welker an All-Pro? What about the other years, especially this year? What talent did he have?

I'll grant you that Welker is more questionable, but Moss was an All Pro before he played with Brady. I think it is funny when someone says "Look! He can win without talent!", points to other teams (like the Colts or others) and scream "Look! They can't win as much with all that talent!" and completely ignore the fact that their team had incredible talent and couldn't leverage it when it mattered most.

3) talent pool being diluted is wrong, look at vi-edits post which is spot-on.

No, actually, vi is wrong. It is simple math - I'm not comparing a 2016 player to a 1986 player, I'm comparing the RELATIVE player populations. A league with 10 teams and 50 players per team vs. a league with 20 teams and 50 players per team will have more talent top to bottom. Not only is this not even debatable, but it is a COMMON concern addressed whenever expansion is talked about.

4) Montana lost plenty of games with just as much talent, just not in the super bowl.....he lost a lot before even getting there and has played almost half as many as Brady.

Montana did lose games and that was covered - the NFC of the 80s/90s was a far more competitive conference than anything we have today. Not only was it a fiercely competitive conference, it was the DOMINANT conference in the NFL during an era when you could argue (with considerable merit) that the AFC had better offensive talent. Let's not forget that the AFC was the primary beneficiary of the legendary 1983 draft. The NFC won something like 14 Super Bowls in a row and something like 16 of 18 from 1980 to 1998. Montana was also human and obviously made mistakes, but IMO, he is still the best ever. Montana faced stacked teams like the Bears/Giants/Redskins and to a lesser extent, the Cowboys, all of which were stacked with legends of the games and all (except the Cowboys) who won multiple Super Bowls.

 

[vi edit]

No, actually, vi is wrong. It is simple math - I'm not comparing a 2016 player to a 1986 player, I'm comparing the RELATIVE player populations. A league with 10 teams and 50 players per team vs. a league with 20 teams and 50 players per team will have more talent top to bottom. Not only is this not even debatable, but it is a COMMON concern addressed whenever expansion is talked about.

.

Simple math says that with a population of 80 million more people finding 500 more athletes should not be impossible. Again...you have to look at the pool outside of a vacuum. I agree that if in one year the league doubled it's size you would have a talent issue. But that's not how it works. You also ignore many other factors like player maturity with those opting out early from college, season length, shortened weeks from Monday and Thursday night games, and a whole slew of other factors over the years affecting play quality and player ability.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Simple math says that with a population of 80 million more people finding 500 more athletes should not be impossible. Again...you have to look at the pool outside of a vacuum. I agree that if in one year the league doubled it's size you would have a talent issue. But that's not how it works. You also ignore many other factors like player maturity with those opting out early from college, season length, shortened weeks from Monday and Thursday night games, and a whole slew of other factors over the years affecting play quality and player ability.

You do bring up a good point about having 80 million more people. Point taken.

 

[gorcorps]

Doesn't matter - it is simple math and is always a concern raised whenever a league expands. Note I'm not DIRECTLY comparing a player from 2016 to a player from 1986 - what I'm making is a relative comparison. If you have a league with 10 teams with 50 players each and a league with 20 teams with 50 players each, the smaller league is going to have the higher quality teams on average.

If you dropped 4 teams from today's NFL, the other 28 teams would have better rosters as a result because they'd pick up the great/good players from those closed teams and then drop the lesser players on their teams.

But in your example here, you say 4 teams less from TODAYS league using TODAY'S players, completely ignoring the progress athletics has made in 40 years. The bar to make it these days is higher IMO, but there's simply no way to prove it. All I know is that you're ignoring the variables that actually matter to make a point that has no way to be proven.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Knee down before ball crosses goal line, final play.

Are you blind or stupid or both? That video - https://twitter.com/keenan_parente/status/828450148145647621 shows the ball crossed the plane of the goal line at second 6. Keep crying. Already provided you with the photos of the ball crossing the goal line with knees not down. Clueless like usual.

 

[Svnla]

All I know is today's players are much bigger, faster, more physical, have much much more opportunities to improve via diets, exercises, psychology, and on and on... than players in the past. Heck, even college players in present time (SEC/Pac10/Big10/ACC/Big12) are bigger than NFL players back in the 60's/70's/even 80's.

 

[Capt Caveman]

This argument is misleading. Montana made players like Rice and Craig All Pros - they didn't just magically appear one day as HOFers. The same goes for Manning - Harrison became a star only after Manning appeared, etc. Brady has had some major talent on the offense (Moss, Welker) and couldn't get the job done.

Montana also played against far, far tougher competition and the rules weren't as friendly towards the offense as they are today. Additionally, the NFL talent pool is more diluted today than it was in the 80s - you have 200+ players in the league today who wouldn't have made an NFL roster in the 80s. Montana also wouldn't have lost a game like SB 42 especially with the talent on the offensive side of the ball that NE had in that game.

Hilarious! How come Jerry Rice's best year's were right after Montana left? Let me guess, Steve Young made Jerry Rice a HOFer too!!!

Yeah, Brady had Moss for a year in 2007 then Brady was injured in 2008 and in 2009 Moss sucked and was traded away. And how was Welker before and after Brady? Looks like Brady made Welker. You're so confusing saying Rice made other players into HOFers but Brady doesn't?

Greater Competition? Brady had to deal with Manning all of those years, someone up til only recently you declared to be the GOAT. Rules? All teams had to deal with the same rules in their respective eras making the competition the same. Montana also didn't have to deal with a salary cap and had HOFers on defense. Also, I think Montana is only second to Manning to one and done in the Playoffs.

And Montana would have won in SB 42? No, he would have been one and done before making it.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Gronk!!

I love his big dumb guy dance and College Frat party attitude.

Watch Rob Gronkowski make great grab and spike a beer at Patriots Super Bowl parade

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl...eer-at-patriots-super-bowl-parade/ar-AAmHKP8?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Hilarious! How come Jerry Rice's best year's were right after Montana left? Let me guess, Steve Young made Jerry Rice a HOFer too!!!

Yeah, Brady had Moss for a year in 2007 then Brady was injured in 2008 and in 2009 Moss sucked and was traded away. And how was Welker before and after Brady? Looks like Brady made Welker. You're so confusing saying Rice made other players into HOFers but Brady doesn't?

Greater Competition? Brady had to deal with Manning all of those years, someone up til only recently you declared to be the GOAT. Rules? All teams had to deal with the same rules in their respective eras making the competition the same. Montana also didn't have to deal with a salary cap and had HOFers on defense. Also, I think Montana is only second to Manning to one and done in the Playoffs.

And Montana would have won in SB 42? No, he would have been one and done before making it.

Yes, Montana would have won SB 42 - just like he won every SB he played. No losses - at all. SB 42 is one of the most embarrassing losses in league history and Brady certainly was the "goat" in that game. Lol!

Oh, and Rice had his best years with Young? Another HOF QB who in terms of physical skill set, was probably second only to Elway in league history? Color me shocked! I didn't say Rice wasn't a transcendent talent - I was disputing the notion that Montana was some sort of scrub before Rice, and that clearly wasn't the case. Anyone who seriously claims or implies that Rice made Montana is ignorant of Montana's history before Rice. Rice made life much, much easier for Montana but Montana was already a legend before Rice played a single down in the NFL. Remember guys like Freddie Solomon and Dwight Clark? Those were the kinds of receivers Montana won 2 SBs with.

And regarding talent - I recall you guys throwing Dallas Clark around as an example of the amazing offensive talent on the Colts. What happened to him once he left the Colts? He didn't do a whole hell of a lot. And regarding Welker - I admitted that he wasn't some great talent before the Patriots. Your point? You're actually reinforcing a comment I made - that oftentimes, the QB is as much or more responsible for the receivers success than the receiver. Moss certainly was a star before the Patriots and after all those years of Pats fans whining about the massive offensive talent on the Colts being some sort of indicator that Manning sucked since they couldn't win SBs with it, it wasn't so fun when the shoe was on the other foot, was it?

Brady had to deal with Manning - did I miss the game where Manning was a DB or something? Of course, he would've been better than some of those Colts defensive scrubs. At any rate, what Brady "dealt" with more often than not was a completely unbalanced Colts team with inconsistent defenses, shitty special teams, and idiot coaches. You're seriously comparing the Colts to the Giants, Bears, and Redskins of the 80s? Please, stop embarrassing yourself. The Colts were a one-man show. Those teams were devastating in their era.

The rules comment was comparing generations - like it or not, rules favor the offense now. They didn't then. No shit that everyone in the 80s NFL followed the same rules - thanks genius. The point, of course, was that offenses now have it easier because the rules protect them more. You could mug receivers in the 80s. You can't now. That's why comparing stratospheric passing numbers of today's NFL to past eras isn't enlightening or fair. Drew Brees isn't throwing for 5000 yards every year in the NFL of 1985.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

All I know is today's players are much bigger, faster, more physical, have much much more opportunities to improve via diets, exercises, psychology, and on and on... than players in the past. Heck, even college players in present time (SEC/Pac10/Big10/ACC/Big12) are bigger than NFL players back in the 60's/70's/even 80's.

The size difference is the most staggering difference. I don't remember the exact numbers, so I may be off a little, but I recall seeing a stat a few years ago where the average lineman in the NFL in the 80s was around 260 lbs and they only had a handful over 300. 260 lbs is like a linebacker in today's NFL.

 

[manly]

I still think Favre, Montana, Marino, or Manning, and a few others might have been better QBs IMHO, but the team makeup in general amounts to a lot.

Brady obviously isn't a hack, but doubt he is the greatest.

I'm a long-time Packers fan, but you're crazy if you argue that Favre is better than Brady. Personally I used to always have Dan Marino up in the top 3 or 4 all-time but as the years go by, it's harder to justify that position when other great ones have won multiple titles.

Montana, Brady or even Peyton Manning is somewhat a matter of personal preference. If you place the most weight on playoff performances, Montana looks like the GOAT. If you overweight regular season stats, Manning is arguably as great as anybody. I think neither of those extremes is correct, you have to look at total "body of work". For me, it's pretty much 1A and 1B between Montana and Brady.

ICF is correct that the NFL has a lot more parity now; I'm not sure if "diluted" is how I would call it. In the pre- free agency days, Eddie DeBartolo ran his stacked team like the 60s Celtics. He may be right that the average playoff team was stronger back then, but I don't know how strong the evidence is that running through the playoffs gauntlet was significantly tougher than it is now.

 

[BUTCH1]

Very different situations. Seattle had Beast Mode, while the Patriots' strength was in their receivers. They were throwing the ball at will but had had a terrible time running it all game. Also, the Falcons had already stripped the ball from a Patriots RB and would definitely be trying to do it again. Finally, Brady's pass was much harder to intercept than Wilson's.

IDK, Blount finished the season with 16 TD's and most all were from close in, I could possibly see that fade if Gronk was playing because he's so tall and can jump so high it can be put in a spot where he gets it or no one gets it. Bennett has been nursing a bum ankle for 4-5 weeks so in my humble opinion it was a HORRIBLE idea at that point in the game.

 

[BUTCH1]

The Falcons PLAYERS didn't choke- they gave it their all. The Falcons coaching staff was simply not on the level of that of the Patriots. The difference in physical and mental conditioning was easy to see in the second half. Quinn will probably learn from this next year.

This is why it's hard for me to definitively label Brady as the GOAT because of his rings. Brady has played for the best coach and GM in the history of the game - he always has a team around him and an ice-cold leader at the head of it. Brady is right near the top and maybe at it, but the rings are less important to me because he had an unstoppable force on his side. No matter how great a QB is, he cannot win five Super Bowls without a TREMENDOUS amount of help. Rings are much more of a team stat than an individual one, even for a QB.

But you could also argue Brady lost his "Julio Jones" (Gronk) and kept churning out the wins. He had Moss for 1 season basically and he was breaking records left and right. They didn't last long before Peyton quickly eclipsed most of them but still, if he had a Rice or Moss or Megatron for 8-10 seasons his numbers might be staggering.

 

[Chaotic42]

Not very accurate, but still funny.

 

[BUTCH1]

The Falcons PLAYERS didn't choke- they gave it their all. The Falcons coaching staff was simply not on the level of that of the Patriots. The difference in physical and mental conditioning was easy to see in the second half. Quinn will probably learn from this next year.

This is why it's hard for me to definitively label Brady as the GOAT because of his rings. Brady has played for the best coach and GM in the history of the game - he always has a team around him and an ice-cold leader at the head of it. Brady is right near the top and maybe at it, but the rings are less important to me because he had an unstoppable force on his side. No matter how great a QB is, he cannot win five Super Bowls without a TREMENDOUS amount of help. Rings are much more of a team stat than an individual one, even for a QB.

But you could also argue Brady lost his "Julio Jones" (Gronk) and kept churning out the wins. He had Moss for 1 season basically and he was breaking records left and right. They didn't last long before Peyton quickly eclipsed most of them but still, if he had a Rice or Moss or Megatron for 8-10 seasons his numbers might be staggering.

It wasn't just Tom. It didn't help the Falcons couldn't get past the Pat's D (which let Brady down before against the Giants).

Oh I agree 100% on that, AFAIC the Falcons had the game won with the un-*ucking believable catch by Jones. From that spot a FG is about 42yds and you kicker has made 29/31 in that range over the last 2 seasons. No, nothing compares to the pressure of a SB on the line and kicks have been blocked, but IMO you run a draw from there with Freeman and you will gain at least 5. The Pats were in "desperation" mode at that time, they knew a FG makes any comeback close to impossible so when Ryan was told to go with a pass-play a blitz HAD to happen. Then the WTF pass to Bennett that could have been easily intercepted, HORRIBLE call by Josh M. I think these coaches "out-think" themselves sometimes in big moments. When Seattle opted to pass Bill B let the clock run down to almost nothing, CLEARLY a TO needed to be called but it wasn't. Had beast mode punched that rock in Brady would only have 15 seconds to get them into FG range, Seattle's decision to pass and one of the greatest plays in SB history bailed out BB on that one.

 

[BUTCH1]

Yes, Montana would have won SB 42 - just like he won every SB he played. No losses - at all. SB 42 is one of the most embarrassing losses in league history and Brady certainly was the "goat" in that game. Lol!

Oh, and Rice had his best years with Young? Another HOF QB who in terms of physical skill set, was probably second only to Elway in league history? Color me shocked! I didn't say Rice wasn't a transcendent talent - I was disputing the notion that Montana was some sort of scrub before Rice, and that clearly wasn't the case. Anyone who seriously claims or implies that Rice made Montana is ignorant of Montana's history before Rice. Rice made life much, much easier for Montana but Montana was already a legend before Rice played a single down in the NFL. Remember guys like Freddie Solomon and Dwight Clark? Those were the kinds of receivers Montana won 2 SBs with.

And regarding talent - I recall you guys throwing Dallas Clark around as an example of the amazing offensive talent on the Colts. What happened to him once he left the Colts? He didn't do a whole hell of a lot. And regarding Welker - I admitted that he wasn't some great talent before the Patriots. Your point? You're actually reinforcing a comment I made - that oftentimes, the QB is as much or more responsible for the receivers success than the receiver. Moss certainly was a star before the Patriots and after all those years of Pats fans whining about the massive offensive talent on the Colts being some sort of indicator that Manning sucked since they couldn't win SBs with it, it wasn't so fun when the shoe was on the other foot, was it?

Brady had to deal with Manning - did I miss the game where Manning was a DB or something? Of course, he would've been better than some of those Colts defensive scrubs. At any rate, what Brady "dealt" with more often than not was a completely unbalanced Colts team with inconsistent defenses, shitty special teams, and idiot coaches. You're seriously comparing the Colts to the Giants, Bears, and Redskins of the 80s? Please, stop embarrassing yourself. The Colts were a one-man show. Those teams were devastating in their era.

The rules comment was comparing generations - like it or not, rules favor the offense now. They didn't then. No shit that everyone in the 80s NFL followed the same rules - thanks genius. The point, of course, was that offenses now have it easier because the rules protect them more. You could mug receivers in the 80s. You can't now. That's why comparing stratospheric passing numbers of today's NFL to past eras isn't enlightening or fair. Drew Brees isn't throwing for 5000 yards every year in the NFL of 1985.

Now you are pulling FANTASY out of your ASS and it's just not gonna fly, "Montana would have won SB 42"..huh? against that Giant's pass-rush?, you call it an "embarrassing" loss but it was by THREE points, not THIRTY points and Brady DID HIS JOB by getting them in the lead late in the 4th, was he supposed to morph into a CB and stop Eli?. Gotta love those Montana SB's vs the Bronco's, what was one 55-10 or something?. I will admit the road to the SB did require the 49'ers to knock out some good teams but the level of competition in the SB's he played in were a joke. Do you really think ANY other QB could lead his team back from 28-3 with 1.25Qtrs of the game left, NO. You're on "ICF island" on this one bro, NO ONE now ranks Brady behind Montana but YOU.

 

[soulcougher73]

Are you blind or stupid or both? That video - https://twitter.com/keenan_parente/status/828450148145647621 shows the ball crossed the plane of the goal line at second 6. Keep crying. Already provided you with the photos of the ball crossing the goal line with knees not down. Clueless like usual.

Maybe he doesnt realize only the tip of the ball has to be over the very first part of the white goal line? lol

 

[zinfamous]

I haven't read the last 4 or 5 pages...are we now trying to argue that Brady isn't GOAT for some reason?

I don't think there is any debate here. I think it was pretty much solidified when they beat the Seahawks 2 years ago. This is just pushing him well out of range of being caught in that designation, and this dude is probably going to play for at least 2 more years, no?

The Pats are just a phenomenal organization from top to bottom, I'd say rivaled only by the 90s Bulls and the Bill Russel Celtics.

 

[soulcougher73]

I think Brady's stats speak for themselves as the GOAT. 2nd place isnt even close.

 

[Anubis]

I think these coaches "out-think" themselves sometimes in big moments. When Seattle opted to pass Bill B let the clock run down to almost nothing, CLEARLY a TO needed to be called but it wasn't. Had beast mode punched that rock in Brady would only have 15 seconds to get them into FG range, Seattle's decision to pass and one of the greatest plays in SB history bailed out BB on that one.

yep

we had this exact same convo after that Superbowl about dumb coaching decisions

 

[Muse]

No, it wasn't.

And LOL @ linking to a website called "falconswire" with an angle that doesn't even show where the ball is only when the knee goes down. Of course you can't see the ball crossing the line (in that video) because there is a Falcons player IN THE WAY.

Seeing the live broadcast I thought it showed that the ball hadn't crossed the GL before knee hit ground. Super slo-mo, top action playback. And I had my own pause, rewind going on my DVR to recheck. I think there's a real good chance that the replay officials just decided that reversing the decision was going to be a monumental hassle and they decided not to bother. Yup, it's MY opinion.

 

[purbeast0]

Seeing the live broadcast I thought it showed that the ball hadn't crossed the GL before knee hit ground. Super slo-mo, top action playback. And I had my own pause, rewind going on my DVR to recheck. I think there's a real good chance that the replay officials just decided that reversing the decision was going to be a monumental hassle and they decided not to bother. Yup, it's MY opinion.

You are factually wrong - it crossed the goal line and was a touchdown.

It's like you saying it's your opinion that was is not wet.

Your opinion is wrong.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Now you are pulling FANTASY out of your ASS and it's just not gonna fly, "Montana would have won SB 42"..huh? against that Giant's pass-rush?, you call it an "embarrassing" loss but it was by THREE points, not THIRTY points and Brady DID HIS JOB by getting them in the lead late in the 4th, was he supposed to morph into a CB and stop Eli?. Gotta love those Montana SB's vs the Bronco's, what was one 55-10 or something?.

A historically great offense like the Patriots had was held to 14 points. I have admitted here several times that it wasn't totally Brady's fault (I'd say coaching and non-adjustments were more at fault), but he does bear some of the blame. Regardless, people seem to ignore the context of SB 42 when they discuss it. This wasn't a regular SB between a couple of 12-4 or 13-3 teams. This was a game between an 18-0 team with a record-setting offense and a chance to make history against a team that barely made it into the playoffs and were a 5th or 6th seeded wildcard. It wasn't just a football game, it was possibly history in the making. If it were a "regular" SB between more evenly matched teams and the Patriots lost, I'd give them a pass. But losing THAT opportunity? I just can't look past it. Yeah, I know, "any given Sunday" - but I believe Montana would've found a way to win it. Off the top of my head, there have been three 18-1 teams in NFL history - the difference being, of course, that two of those won Super Bowls (the Bears and yes, Montana and the 49ers) and the third (NE) didn't. That really bothers me.

I will admit the road to the SB did require the 49'ers to knock out some good teams but the level of competition in the SB's he played in were a joke.

You're an old timer like I am and know very well that this was an NFC vs AFC thing more than just Montana picking on unlucky teams. As I pointed out earlier, the NFC dominated the AFC for the better part of 20 years in SBs. Almost ALL of them were blowouts. The funny thing is that, IIRC, the AFC generally had the advantage in regular season matchups vs the NFC - or it was very, very close. I've read a ton of interesting theories on why the NFC always killed the AFC, but they generally boiled down to the NFC focusing on defense and running and the AFC on offense and specifically, passing. The 1983 draft was seen as the possible cause of all of that. Anyway, the real championship in those days was the NFC Championship. From 1980 to 1998 or so, I think the Raiders were the only AFC team to win a Super Bowl (winning two) and it wasn't until the Broncos beat the Packers in the late 90s that we started seeing some parity returned.

Also, I just saw you discussing how the Seahawks blew the SB against NE. I agree they did and remember this - Brady is likely two plays away from having a losing SB record (the Pete Carroll stupidity and the Ryan sack). In both cases, it was the NE defense that saved the day. A Lynch run and Ryan scrambling 3 yards to his left and throwing the ball away could very well have resulted in losses for NE. Ryan's mistake (or which there were many, but this one in particular) was unforgivable for a veteran QB IMO.

Do you really think ANY other QB could lead his team back from 28-3 with 1.25Qtrs of the game left, NO.

Big comebacks have been done before, and that wasn't even the biggest given the time constraints. Manning was what, 21 points down with 4 minutes left in a game and ended up winning? And what was that game where the Bills rallied from like 28 or 32 points down in the second half behind Frank Reich? Also give credit where it is due - Brady isn't coming back from 25 points without the Patriots defense stepping it up. Yeah, maybe Ryan choked and the Falcons got too conservative late in the game, but outside of the one ridiculous and insane Julio Jones catch, the NE defense did exactly what they needed to do - not give up points on a big play. If they hadn't sacked Ryan towards the end and knocked the Falcons out of FG range, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation and would be talking about the World Champion Atlanta Falcons.

You're on "ICF island" on this one bro, NO ONE now ranks Brady behind Montana but YOU.

Plenty of folks still say Montana is the best, including me. I'd take Montana over any other QB if I needed a clutch win. People are only saying Brady is the GOAT due to the number of rings and that's ridiculous. He's the best of his era, no doubt, but Montana is still the GOAT IMO even though his physical skills were pretty average for an NFL QB even then.