Mikie2times

I think for some people the thought of a church using it's forum or somebody like Kim who has been through hell, as means to possibly increase publicity or branding is about as low as it gets. It's so low that even the faint risk of the intent not being pure is enough to draw a strong reaction. A lot of us don't exactly trust churches to not be this way. Perhaps the church called them and said we would like to do a prayer service for you, do you have anything you would like to say during the service? I doubt it could have been more than that. If you don't want to be skeptical about the intent that's up to you. As some have said, it seems a bit weird. If she was a member at that church it wouldn't seem weird at all. If that seems weird to you so be it.

Wow, that’s a turn out. Well count me in for week 1. So you guys get together for anything football related prior? Like the draft or preseason?

Does Kim belong to this church?

I mean, I don't see any chance of getting him, but if you watched hard knocks it was clear every player in Arizona thought he was the hardest working, toughest player on the team. He is 100% a McD type of guy. I just don't see how this is possible or if it even could make sense given the Rapp signing who has played both Safety spots along with our cap situation and needs. Too bad though, he is just about the perfect player for us.

Tulane road Spears all year and won vs Kansas State and USC. Watching him play, very elusive, great balance, can win with the pass or run. Addison was very good in two major conferences, two systems. Mind you, generally looked at as the two weaker conferences. Watching both this year, they stood out. Now, I don't have a huge appetite for either position very early, but as far as players, I think both can do very well in the NFL.

You have had some great contributions in this thread and this is how I feel the most about this topic. I'm 40, but I enjoy the history of the game and really have since before my teens. I did feel that Brady, and what he has done in this era, is better than anybody else has ever done it. If you compare him to QB's of his era, he has done far more than any of them and by a larger margin than any QB in history. Certainly when you factor in the length of his career he has to get the nod as GOAT and I'm ok with that. What inspired this thread was the thought that he just couldn't have did what he did if he was in Montana's era. It's just wouldn't be possible. The style of play, the nutrition, the rules, the medical advances we have made. It isn't that much different than what Lebron is doing either so we see it in multiple leagues. I mean just thinking about how our average passer rating in the league is now in the 90's. That was barely possible in that era with the defensive contact rules. Then you look at what Montana did and to me it does make for a interesting discussion. It isn't as black and white as the stats seem. Then I always love when other guys like Marino and Peyton get brought up because both were better pure passers than either QB. The release for both QB's was instant, the accuracy was perfect, the arm strength nearly unmatched. Yet in both Brady's and Montana's case they performed at very high levels in the postseason where Marino and Peyton never did. Thanks again for the great contributions. It's awesome hearing some of the things you saw first hand for those of us that were a little after that time.

Most of the teams who have owners that inherited the team are in the 20's. While most of the teams that generated wealth from other sources rank much higher. Makes sense. I don't consider Ralph cheap, it was more, he just wasn't as wealthy as other NFL owners. I will say it's very nice to be in the rich club. Terry is loaded and it shows.

Brady never had a year with a passer rating above 87 under the old rules. Mind you he was still very young so hammering that point doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense to me. In broader terms, not dealing with defensive contact for the first 5 yards helped him, along with all QB's, tremendously. It completely changed the game, increasing average rating and completion % by almost 10 points each and making this a passing league which it never was before. It was Steve Youngs first two seasons in the league on an awful Bucs team. People keep using this time to say, see! Look at how much better he was in with SF. Well, no sh!t, he was a rookie playing on a horrible team. The thread was about trying to compare the eras and discussing this debate. Not just deciding who is independent of era. Most people in this thread have lost site of the thread. Who is the best one independent of era has been discussed here and everywhere else to nauseous levels. Clearly Brady has more of just about everything. Would he do that in the 80's? I don't think he would. Would Montana do it in the era Tom played? I don't know either.

So allow defenders to do whatever they want to WR's for the first 5 yards, which Brady didn't deal with after 2004. Thus slowing down his ability to get rid of the ball quickly, making him hold the ball longer Holding the ball longer exposes you to more physical punishment, which in Montana's time was savage. You either knocked him out or lost. Even in the early 2000's the NFL was not allowing that and by midway thru his career you couldn't touch Brady, a point most of this forum conceded long ago Add in the increase in sports science, medical advances, training advances Brady was, thus far, a player that performed the best at QB when you could avoid the major hits, when you didn't have to deal with your WR's timing getting totally F'ed in the first five yards. You could be elite at reading defenses and get the ball out quick, be accurate and clutch and nothing could stop it. All are things very few players had like Brady did, he is far better than any of his pears in excelling in this environment. That said, his weaknesses, namely his inability to perform when he is under duress and the requirement that he get the ball out quick are basically gone if he plays football in the 80's. His longevity would also be gone. Average passer rating in the 80's was 75, it's in the 90's now. It' very much all hypothetical. But this concept of a landslide victory is just not the case. It's hard to imagine how you could have done Better than Brady did in the era he played, it's equally hard to imagine how you could have done better than Montana did in the era he played.

https://www.si.com/nfl/49ers/.amp/news/was-san-francisco-49ers-quarterback-joe-montana-better-than-tom-brady Decent article. Focused on the era. Lot has been said already here.

Most of Brady's career, for practical purposes, was played by the same general rules. QB's were starting to get protected in the early 2000's when he was breaking out. I mean his knee injury created an entire rule for gods sake. Medicine and nutrition and made major advances. Most important, defensive holding rules changed in 2004. Most his major breakout years passing were post 2004. He has good years prior, but the gaudy ones happened after, as they did for many QB's. I think that change is perhaps as big as any (hitting the QB, medicine, nutrition, etc)

I look at it very similar. Brady was a cerebral QB, accurate, not the strongest arm, not athletic. If he swapped places with Joe, I don't know how he goes on and does what he did in this era. As one poster mentioned, the nutrition and training was worse. The risk for injury based on the style of play and medicine was higher. Defenses could hold for 5 yards with impunity, how much does that mess with how he plays? All of this equals a situation in my mind where Brady would probably have a very similar trajectory as Montana did, which is just about the best you could do at that time. As far as switching out Montana for Brady, I guess it's also hard for me to see Montana doing what Brady did as it would be hard to consider any player doing such a thing. So I guess in a way, I think both players did about as well as you could do in the eras they had. I also think it's very debatable as far as how well each could do in the eras they did not have.

Thank you Bill, quality post. I think this is about as close as we can get to fairly comparing eras. I still wonder how TB would fair with different rules in place. But it's all fun hypothetical. About as close as we can get is performance relative to other players.

It's not like Brady suddenly was more physically gifted. He benefitted from rule changes, along with every other QB who played in his era. Completion % was 10% lower in the mid 80's. Did you think that was just based on talent? It's a bit absurd to think he would just "carve" teams up. His entire life depended on quick passes. His completion % would be down, he would have taken way more shots. I think he would be just fine in that era, but I think Montana would have a much easier time adjusting to Tom's era than Tom Joe's. Even if Tom is better I believe that is the case.

After 8 posts you still haven't discussed anything in the first post 🤣 Do you have any feedback on how you think Brady would have performed in that era? Given the level of contribution you have had in this thread I think that's a fair question. I'm hoping we can do better than "really good".

You do remember how he looked in Buffalo's home opener with Bledsoe? Brady was a different player when he got hit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91ttCz7Dbc4 Try and really understand how a QB feels when this can happen and this is just one. It's not even the most famous. TB never got hit like this once in the pocket. I think people are underestimating it. Also consider the defensive holding rules and how that would impact Brady's 1.5 second release which further prevented him from getting hit. He wouldn't have those options if he played in Montana's time. The point of this thread was consider different variables being applied to Brady. Not rehash the same things that have been discussed. Clearly TB is the Goat based on the normal logic. That said I do really wonder how things would have went for him if he played in a different time. We will never know.

Ya, I mean, to even touch on Young or the post Montana 49ers is pointless. Young was a HOF QB no matter what team he played for. His experience in TB barely even counts. He played 5 games his rookies year and most of a season then was traded. Further, it is not as if Brady had nothing. BB has taken multiple teams since Brady left to contending with us late in the year. He has no talent on that roster which is largely his own doing but the guy can flat out scheme defenses. Better than any coach in NFL history. Again, I have no problem given Brady the nod. But even in Tampa he had a ton of talent. They both won with help, Montana had more, but whose to say what came first, his supporting cast being elite or him making them elite.

If Brady left and handed it off to Steve Young they would still be winning Super Bowls. He can be a great player and so can Montana. That tandem has never really been replicated before. So if that's grounds for diminishing performance, pretty stupid IMO. With that logic any scrub that gets followed by a worse scrub gets elevated. Still a scrub.

Young played his first two years in the league for Tampa, who at the time was one of the worst teams in the league. I think it's a bit short sighted to just site sports medicine/nutrition as the reason Brady played longer. Look at some of the hits QB's took in the 80's. No amount of medicine or nutrition would allow the body to hold up. The fear of taking those shots and being concussed over and over as Joe was certainly would impact any player. At the end of the day I can't dispute giving the nod to Brady but so many better reasons then some of the things being discussed.

Dumbest argument ever, he handed it off to a future hall of famer. Lots of ways to debate this, discussing Steve Young performing well is not close to one of them.

Shame on me 🙃

Thanks, disregard my message (I DM'ed you). This is the info I found online as well. I'm familiar with that area so good deal. Appreciate the kindness!

I'm going to moving there in a few weeks. Not sure if the group I see on the internet is still very active. It's hard to tell. Any of you members or aware of any groups in that area?

The talking heads get to the Goat conversation a lot with basketball. If they don't give it to MJ, the argument typically is depends on the era. Which if you watched NBA in that era, it was a physical game. It's hard to even recognize today's game compared to it. I watched a lot of early 90's NFL as well but just got back into a binge kick of 80's / 90's classics. I can't help but think, why do we never hear the era argument in debating the NFL's Goat conversation? For all the Jim Brown fans, lets just keep this to QB for the sake of this post. Towards the end of his career Montana was basically a concussion time bomb. Over a decade of just brutal hits. He ultimately played his last game against us in the AFC championship and was knocked out. Corrected, he retired a year after the Bills game... When you look at Brady, about the only thing that ever seemed to bother him was being hit. Further, not being hit is precisely what allowed him to do what he did as long as he did. For some time at this point I conceded the Goat title to Brady not really pausing to ask if all things were equal. Watching some of these games and the hits in them. I just don't know how Brady would hold up against this. I know this is a Bills board and many like to dismiss Brady and what he has done, but what is your take on this? Doing your best to put your anti TB feelings to the side, do you think he could have done more than Joe if he played in the 80's and early 90's? Defensive holding not being the same. The insane physicality. Actually a decent amount to unravel on this topic. Factoring era in I have to give the nod to Montana.