RND 2. 2. BRADY VS 9. YOUNG

[Sparegeez]

Young for me

[Teddy Roosevelt]

S.Y.

["THE" MoSav]

Unlike my Elway/Manning pick this won't be as much of a surprise. I'm picking Young. He was better in every aspect in my opinion. Better runnner, better thrower, better scrambler, etc. He had the a great team when he got the chance to play but the problem was the teams he was playing were so incredible. In his prime the only times he was knocked out of the playoffs were by Green Bay and by Dallas and I don't see the Pats beating any of those teams in those years. The Pats squeezed by a lot of teams. Green Bay and dallas walked right through teams the years they beat SF. I'll say it till I die; If Tom Brady happened to have the bad luck of going to Buffalo or Houston we wouldn't know or care who he is. I think Steve Young would have at least dazzled us a little if he got to fully start a 16 game season with Tampa. And even more so if they let him do what he did best more often. In Tampa he ran over 200 yards in five games his first year and over 400 his second year in 14 games. Great athlete.

you make so many good points. But there is something special about Brady IMO. And when you say if Brady would have ended up in HOU nobody would care who he is. Well you could say that about Montana if he never had Walsh to run that west coast offense. Walsh taught him how to be a master in that offense. Brady>Young but not by much.

At risk of going too off topic, Monatana was more of a warrior in my opinion. He was a better college player and knew how to make big comebacks. He was also a better athlete. Do I think he'd have gotten 4 Superbowls with out Walsh? Absolutely not. But I think that no matter where he went he'd eventually get a team good enough for him to take to the big game. I think Brady could make a run on a team like Baltimore, Chicago, or Philly. I don't think he'd able to take teams like Indy, Cinci, or Oakland and St. Louis a couple years back anywhere. He simply lacks the ability to make certain throws and avoids making them for good reason, and teams like those with break out down the field WRs rely on the long ball over the shoulder catches. From what I've always seen Brady needs at least a pretty level slant to make throws down the field.


As for both Montana and Young I think they'd each have a field day against the 2001 St. Louis team at the Superbowl. I know Brady was still green at the time but even in his game against Carolina which I saw on NFL replay recently, if the guy wan't open in the short field  Brady rarely made the pass. Young could air it out if need be. He could buy time if need be. He could run if neeed be. And he could easily throw short balls. I just don't see how a New England team with with a younger Steve Young would lose the Superbowl runs they were in. And that year that Brady "carried NE on his back" he was lucky to play the Bills and Jets twice each and games with Oakland and New Orleans helped a lot (and Miami wasn't as good as their record that year). 8 of their 10 wins came against real losers of teams. If NE had a schedule like San Diego's that year you see a completely different win/loss record. In any other division I don't see NE making the playoffs that year.

I guess the bottom line is that if I had a bad team I'd pick Monatana and Young over Brady because I think they have a better chance at making a bad team play well. Anyone can win with a great team. Particularly a great defensive team with a an amazing west coast system. What guys like Vick did for Atlanta or Flutie did for Buffalo a guy like Brady could never do. Now I can see why Vick could screw things up in Indy with his attitude and poor passing but I'd like to hear someone explain to me why Doug Flutie would lose wih a team like the Pats. And Young and Monatana aren't erratic like Vick and jump to stupid decision or bad throws.

young and montana always had more weapons too, you could argue that for brady...

Bottom line..YOUD CHOOSE..but its all opinion...Montana is the only one i think that cant b argued..

[Shallow]

Unlike my Elway/Manning pick this won't be as much of a surprise. I'm picking Young. He was better in every aspect in my opinion. Better runnner, better thrower, better scrambler, etc. He had the a great team when he got the chance to play but the problem was the teams he was playing were so incredible. In his prime the only times he was knocked out of the playoffs were by Green Bay and by Dallas and I don't see the Pats beating any of those teams in those years. The Pats squeezed by a lot of teams. Green Bay and dallas walked right through teams the years they beat SF. I'll say it till I die; If Tom Brady happened to have the bad luck of going to Buffalo or Houston we wouldn't know or care who he is. I think Steve Young would have at least dazzled us a little if he got to fully start a 16 game season with Tampa. And even more so if they let him do what he did best more often. In Tampa he ran over 200 yards in five games his first year and over 400 his second year in 14 games. Great athlete.

you make so many good points. But there is something special about Brady IMO. And when you say if Brady would have ended up in HOU nobody would care who he is. Well you could say that about Montana if he never had Walsh to run that west coast offense. Walsh taught him how to be a master in that offense. Brady>Young but not by much.

At risk of going too off topic, Monatana was more of a warrior in my opinion. He was a better college player and knew how to make big comebacks. He was also a better athlete. Do I think he'd have gotten 4 Superbowls with out Walsh? Absolutely not. But I think that no matter where he went he'd eventually get a team good enough for him to take to the big game. I think Brady could make a run on a team like Baltimore, Chicago, or Philly. I don't think he'd able to take teams like Indy, Cinci, or Oakland and St. Louis a couple years back anywhere. He simply lacks the ability to make certain throws and avoids making them for good reason, and teams like those with break out down the field WRs rely on the long ball over the shoulder catches. From what I've always seen Brady needs at least a pretty level slant to make throws down the field.


As for both Montana and Young I think they'd each have a field day against the 2001 St. Louis team at the Superbowl. I know Brady was still green at the time but even in his game against Carolina which I saw on NFL replay recently, if the guy wan't open in the short field  Brady rarely made the pass. Young could air it out if need be. He could buy time if need be. He could run if neeed be. And he could easily throw short balls. I just don't see how a New England team with with a younger Steve Young would lose the Superbowl runs they were in. And that year that Brady "carried NE on his back" he was lucky to play the Bills and Jets twice each and games with Oakland and New Orleans helped a lot (and Miami wasn't as good as their record that year). 8 of their 10 wins came against real losers of teams. If NE had a schedule like San Diego's that year you see a completely different win/loss record. In any other division I don't see NE making the playoffs that year.

I guess the bottom line is that if I had a bad team I'd pick Monatana and Young over Brady because I think they have a better chance at making a bad team play well. Anyone can win with a great team. Particularly a great defensive team with a an amazing west coast system. What guys like Vick did for Atlanta or Flutie did for Buffalo a guy like Brady could never do. Now I can see why Vick could screw things up in Indy with his attitude and poor passing but I'd like to hear someone explain to me why Doug Flutie would lose wih a team like the Pats. And Young and Monatana aren't erratic like Vick and jump to stupid decision or bad throws.

young and montana always had more weapons too, you could argue that for brady...

Bottom line..YOUD CHOOSE..but its all opinion...Montana is the only one i think that cant b argued..

Well I'm not trying to make it appear as if it is more than just my opinion, or that my opinion means more than any other football fan's. Now if the same guy were to have been the QB coach of both Young and Brady then his opinion I would consider over anyone else's.

Anyway, I'd compare Montana's pre-Rice weapons to Brady's. Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon were very good, particularly Clark. But Troy Brown and David Patten were a nice combo the first year and later on there was Givens and Branch added to the mix and all 4 played for a little while. On running the Smith/Faulk combo got the job done as well as the Craig etc group in San Fran. And Dillon was better the last couple years than any Montana runner. Allen was better than Dillon early on but I'll take Dillon '04, '05, '06 over Allen in his KC days. Of course neither can compare to the Rice, Owens, Stokes team that Young had, but I think he did pretty well given his play time during his second year in Tampa. I guess we'll never how he would have done with an average group of WRs long term. I think Monatana showed his grot when he went to KC and took them all the way to the AFC championship and maybe could have won it if he hadn't been taken out early with an injury. Of course if he did win and then somehow beat Dallas that year in the Superbowl then this whole Geatest QB poll would be pointless because Monatana would be the clear winner from the beginning.

The time will come when Brady ends up on a bad team with a tough schedule and we'll see what he does.

P.S. if Brady goes down next year with an injury and Cassel and NE goes to the AFC championship or win the Superbowl with Cassel, hypothetically speaking, will you then agree that the system was more imporant than the QB at NE, or will you argue that Cassel is better than Manning too? Just wondering.

["THE" MoSav]

Unlike my Elway/Manning pick this won't be as much of a surprise. I'm picking Young. He was better in every aspect in my opinion. Better runnner, better thrower, better scrambler, etc. He had the a great team when he got the chance to play but the problem was the teams he was playing were so incredible. In his prime the only times he was knocked out of the playoffs were by Green Bay and by Dallas and I don't see the Pats beating any of those teams in those years. The Pats squeezed by a lot of teams. Green Bay and dallas walked right through teams the years they beat SF. I'll say it till I die; If Tom Brady happened to have the bad luck of going to Buffalo or Houston we wouldn't know or care who he is. I think Steve Young would have at least dazzled us a little if he got to fully start a 16 game season with Tampa. And even more so if they let him do what he did best more often. In Tampa he ran over 200 yards in five games his first year and over 400 his second year in 14 games. Great athlete.

you make so many good points. But there is something special about Brady IMO. And when you say if Brady would have ended up in HOU nobody would care who he is. Well you could say that about Montana if he never had Walsh to run that west coast offense. Walsh taught him how to be a master in that offense. Brady>Young but not by much.

At risk of going too off topic, Monatana was more of a warrior in my opinion. He was a better college player and knew how to make big comebacks. He was also a better athlete. Do I think he'd have gotten 4 Superbowls with out Walsh? Absolutely not. But I think that no matter where he went he'd eventually get a team good enough for him to take to the big game. I think Brady could make a run on a team like Baltimore, Chicago, or Philly. I don't think he'd able to take teams like Indy, Cinci, or Oakland and St. Louis a couple years back anywhere. He simply lacks the ability to make certain throws and avoids making them for good reason, and teams like those with break out down the field WRs rely on the long ball over the shoulder catches. From what I've always seen Brady needs at least a pretty level slant to make throws down the field.


As for both Montana and Young I think they'd each have a field day against the 2001 St. Louis team at the Superbowl. I know Brady was still green at the time but even in his game against Carolina which I saw on NFL replay recently, if the guy wan't open in the short field  Brady rarely made the pass. Young could air it out if need be. He could buy time if need be. He could run if neeed be. And he could easily throw short balls. I just don't see how a New England team with with a younger Steve Young would lose the Superbowl runs they were in. And that year that Brady "carried NE on his back" he was lucky to play the Bills and Jets twice each and games with Oakland and New Orleans helped a lot (and Miami wasn't as good as their record that year). 8 of their 10 wins came against real losers of teams. If NE had a schedule like San Diego's that year you see a completely different win/loss record. In any other division I don't see NE making the playoffs that year.

I guess the bottom line is that if I had a bad team I'd pick Monatana and Young over Brady because I think they have a better chance at making a bad team play well. Anyone can win with a great team. Particularly a great defensive team with a an amazing west coast system. What guys like Vick did for Atlanta or Flutie did for Buffalo a guy like Brady could never do. Now I can see why Vick could screw things up in Indy with his attitude and poor passing but I'd like to hear someone explain to me why Doug Flutie would lose wih a team like the Pats. And Young and Monatana aren't erratic like Vick and jump to stupid decision or bad throws.

young and montana always had more weapons too, you could argue that for brady...

Bottom line..YOUD CHOOSE..but its all opinion...Montana is the only one i think that cant b argued..

Well I'm not trying to make it appear as if it is more than just my opinion, or that my opinion means more than any other football fan's. Now if the same guy were to have been the QB coach of both Young and Brady then his opinion I would consider over anyone else's.

Anyway, I'd compare Montana's pre-Rice weapons to Brady's. Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon were very good, particularly Clark. But Troy Brown and David Patten were a nice combo the first year and later on there was Givens and Branch added to the mix and all 4 played for a little while. On running the Smith/Faulk combo got the job done as well as the Craig etc group in San Fran. And Dillon was better the last couple years than any Montana runner. Allen was better than Dillon early on but I'll take Dillon '04, '05, '06 over Allen in his KC days. Of course neither can compare to the Rice, Owens, Stokes team that Young had, but I think he did pretty well given his play time during his second year in Tampa. I guess we'll never how he would have done with an average group of WRs long term. I think Monatana showed his grot when he went to KC and took them all the way to the AFC championship and maybe could have won it if he hadn't been taken out early with an injury. Of course if he did win and then somehow beat Dallas that year in the Superbowl then this whole Geatest QB poll would be pointless because Monatana would be the clear winner from the beginning.

The time will come when Brady ends up on a bad team with a tough schedule and we'll see what he does.

P.S. if Brady goes down next year with an injury and Cassel and NE goes to the AFC championship or win the Superbowl with Cassel, hypothetically speaking, will you then agree that the system was more imporant than the QB at NE, or will you argue that Cassel is better than Manning too? Just wondering.

I will say the system is damn good. Im sorry Montans system was just as good he played under as Brady's. Can you deny that?

[Shallow]

Unlike my Elway/Manning pick this won't be as much of a surprise. I'm picking Young. He was better in every aspect in my opinion. Better runnner, better thrower, better scrambler, etc. He had the a great team when he got the chance to play but the problem was the teams he was playing were so incredible. In his prime the only times he was knocked out of the playoffs were by Green Bay and by Dallas and I don't see the Pats beating any of those teams in those years. The Pats squeezed by a lot of teams. Green Bay and dallas walked right through teams the years they beat SF. I'll say it till I die; If Tom Brady happened to have the bad luck of going to Buffalo or Houston we wouldn't know or care who he is. I think Steve Young would have at least dazzled us a little if he got to fully start a 16 game season with Tampa. And even more so if they let him do what he did best more often. In Tampa he ran over 200 yards in five games his first year and over 400 his second year in 14 games. Great athlete.

you make so many good points. But there is something special about Brady IMO. And when you say if Brady would have ended up in HOU nobody would care who he is. Well you could say that about Montana if he never had Walsh to run that west coast offense. Walsh taught him how to be a master in that offense. Brady>Young but not by much.

At risk of going too off topic, Monatana was more of a warrior in my opinion. He was a better college player and knew how to make big comebacks. He was also a better athlete. Do I think he'd have gotten 4 Superbowls with out Walsh? Absolutely not. But I think that no matter where he went he'd eventually get a team good enough for him to take to the big game. I think Brady could make a run on a team like Baltimore, Chicago, or Philly. I don't think he'd able to take teams like Indy, Cinci, or Oakland and St. Louis a couple years back anywhere. He simply lacks the ability to make certain throws and avoids making them for good reason, and teams like those with break out down the field WRs rely on the long ball over the shoulder catches. From what I've always seen Brady needs at least a pretty level slant to make throws down the field.


As for both Montana and Young I think they'd each have a field day against the 2001 St. Louis team at the Superbowl. I know Brady was still green at the time but even in his game against Carolina which I saw on NFL replay recently, if the guy wan't open in the short field  Brady rarely made the pass. Young could air it out if need be. He could buy time if need be. He could run if neeed be. And he could easily throw short balls. I just don't see how a New England team with with a younger Steve Young would lose the Superbowl runs they were in. And that year that Brady "carried NE on his back" he was lucky to play the Bills and Jets twice each and games with Oakland and New Orleans helped a lot (and Miami wasn't as good as their record that year). 8 of their 10 wins came against real losers of teams. If NE had a schedule like San Diego's that year you see a completely different win/loss record. In any other division I don't see NE making the playoffs that year.

I guess the bottom line is that if I had a bad team I'd pick Monatana and Young over Brady because I think they have a better chance at making a bad team play well. Anyone can win with a great team. Particularly a great defensive team with a an amazing west coast system. What guys like Vick did for Atlanta or Flutie did for Buffalo a guy like Brady could never do. Now I can see why Vick could screw things up in Indy with his attitude and poor passing but I'd like to hear someone explain to me why Doug Flutie would lose wih a team like the Pats. And Young and Monatana aren't erratic like Vick and jump to stupid decision or bad throws.

young and montana always had more weapons too, you could argue that for brady...

Bottom line..YOUD CHOOSE..but its all opinion...Montana is the only one i think that cant b argued..

Well I'm not trying to make it appear as if it is more than just my opinion, or that my opinion means more than any other football fan's. Now if the same guy were to have been the QB coach of both Young and Brady then his opinion I would consider over anyone else's.

Anyway, I'd compare Montana's pre-Rice weapons to Brady's. Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon were very good, particularly Clark. But Troy Brown and David Patten were a nice combo the first year and later on there was Givens and Branch added to the mix and all 4 played for a little while. On running the Smith/Faulk combo got the job done as well as the Craig etc group in San Fran. And Dillon was better the last couple years than any Montana runner. Allen was better than Dillon early on but I'll take Dillon '04, '05, '06 over Allen in his KC days. Of course neither can compare to the Rice, Owens, Stokes team that Young had, but I think he did pretty well given his play time during his second year in Tampa. I guess we'll never how he would have done with an average group of WRs long term. I think Monatana showed his grot when he went to KC and took them all the way to the AFC championship and maybe could have won it if he hadn't been taken out early with an injury. Of course if he did win and then somehow beat Dallas that year in the Superbowl then this whole Geatest QB poll would be pointless because Monatana would be the clear winner from the beginning.

The time will come when Brady ends up on a bad team with a tough schedule and we'll see what he does.

P.S. if Brady goes down next year with an injury and Cassel and NE goes to the AFC championship or win the Superbowl with Cassel, hypothetically speaking, will you then agree that the system was more imporant than the QB at NE, or will you argue that Cassel is better than Manning too? Just wondering.

I will say the system is damn good. Im sorry Montans system was just as good he played under as Brady's. Can you deny that?

Have I ever denied that? I will always say that the 80s Niners were better on both sides of the field than the Pats ever were. I just look at Montana before and after that run to say I'd take him over Brady. Montana has also proven to be a great come back guy. I don't think I've ever seen a big game comeback from Brady, and the ones I've seen in the season I haven't seen them done the same way I remember seeing Montana do them.

[Don Jacob]

wow a tie on the last day......someone needs to break this tie

[swangin and bangin]

VOTE FOR YOUNG[/b][/size]

[Don Jacob]

we need 1 more vote people

[Don Jacob]

i'll kill a midget if no one breaks this tie

[swangin and bangin]

some body vote for STEVE YOUNG allready

["THE" MoSav]

Unlike my Elway/Manning pick this won't be as much of a surprise. I'm picking Young. He was better in every aspect in my opinion. Better runnner, better thrower, better scrambler, etc. He had the a great team when he got the chance to play but the problem was the teams he was playing were so incredible. In his prime the only times he was knocked out of the playoffs were by Green Bay and by Dallas and I don't see the Pats beating any of those teams in those years. The Pats squeezed by a lot of teams. Green Bay and dallas walked right through teams the years they beat SF. I'll say it till I die; If Tom Brady happened to have the bad luck of going to Buffalo or Houston we wouldn't know or care who he is. I think Steve Young would have at least dazzled us a little if he got to fully start a 16 game season with Tampa. And even more so if they let him do what he did best more often. In Tampa he ran over 200 yards in five games his first year and over 400 his second year in 14 games. Great athlete.

you make so many good points. But there is something special about Brady IMO. And when you say if Brady would have ended up in HOU nobody would care who he is. Well you could say that about Montana if he never had Walsh to run that west coast offense. Walsh taught him how to be a master in that offense. Brady>Young but not by much.

At risk of going too off topic, Monatana was more of a warrior in my opinion. He was a better college player and knew how to make big comebacks. He was also a better athlete. Do I think he'd have gotten 4 Superbowls with out Walsh? Absolutely not. But I think that no matter where he went he'd eventually get a team good enough for him to take to the big game. I think Brady could make a run on a team like Baltimore, Chicago, or Philly. I don't think he'd able to take teams like Indy, Cinci, or Oakland and St. Louis a couple years back anywhere. He simply lacks the ability to make certain throws and avoids making them for good reason, and teams like those with break out down the field WRs rely on the long ball over the shoulder catches. From what I've always seen Brady needs at least a pretty level slant to make throws down the field.


As for both Montana and Young I think they'd each have a field day against the 2001 St. Louis team at the Superbowl. I know Brady was still green at the time but even in his game against Carolina which I saw on NFL replay recently, if the guy wan't open in the short field  Brady rarely made the pass. Young could air it out if need be. He could buy time if need be. He could run if neeed be. And he could easily throw short balls. I just don't see how a New England team with with a younger Steve Young would lose the Superbowl runs they were in. And that year that Brady "carried NE on his back" he was lucky to play the Bills and Jets twice each and games with Oakland and New Orleans helped a lot (and Miami wasn't as good as their record that year). 8 of their 10 wins came against real losers of teams. If NE had a schedule like San Diego's that year you see a completely different win/loss record. In any other division I don't see NE making the playoffs that year.

I guess the bottom line is that if I had a bad team I'd pick Monatana and Young over Brady because I think they have a better chance at making a bad team play well. Anyone can win with a great team. Particularly a great defensive team with a an amazing west coast system. What guys like Vick did for Atlanta or Flutie did for Buffalo a guy like Brady could never do. Now I can see why Vick could screw things up in Indy with his attitude and poor passing but I'd like to hear someone explain to me why Doug Flutie would lose wih a team like the Pats. And Young and Monatana aren't erratic like Vick and jump to stupid decision or bad throws.

young and montana always had more weapons too, you could argue that for brady...

Bottom line..YOUD CHOOSE..but its all opinion...Montana is the only one i think that cant b argued..

Well I'm not trying to make it appear as if it is more than just my opinion, or that my opinion means more than any other football fan's. Now if the same guy were to have been the QB coach of both Young and Brady then his opinion I would consider over anyone else's.

Anyway, I'd compare Montana's pre-Rice weapons to Brady's. Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon were very good, particularly Clark. But Troy Brown and David Patten were a nice combo the first year and later on there was Givens and Branch added to the mix and all 4 played for a little while. On running the Smith/Faulk combo got the job done as well as the Craig etc group in San Fran. And Dillon was better the last couple years than any Montana runner. Allen was better than Dillon early on but I'll take Dillon '04, '05, '06 over Allen in his KC days. Of course neither can compare to the Rice, Owens, Stokes team that Young had, but I think he did pretty well given his play time during his second year in Tampa. I guess we'll never how he would have done with an average group of WRs long term. I think Monatana showed his grot when he went to KC and took them all the way to the AFC championship and maybe could have won it if he hadn't been taken out early with an injury. Of course if he did win and then somehow beat Dallas that year in the Superbowl then this whole Geatest QB poll would be pointless because Monatana would be the clear winner from the beginning.

The time will come when Brady ends up on a bad team with a tough schedule and we'll see what he does.

P.S. if Brady goes down next year with an injury and Cassel and NE goes to the AFC championship or win the Superbowl with Cassel, hypothetically speaking, will you then agree that the system was more imporant than the QB at NE, or will you argue that Cassel is better than Manning too? Just wondering.

I will say the system is damn good. Im sorry Montans system was just as good he played under as Brady's. Can you deny that?

Have I ever denied that? I will always say that the 80s Niners were better on both sides of the field than the Pats ever were. I just look at Montana before and after that run to say I'd take him over Brady. Montana has also proven to be a great come back guy. I don't think I've ever seen a big game comeback from Brady, and the ones I've seen in the season I haven't seen them done the same way I remember seeing Montana do them.

Brady starts off well in big games and gets his team a lead so they dont have to comeback all the time. You cant judge somebody on lack of comebacks.LOL! Look at the Steelers Title game 2 years ago. He throws 2 qucik TD's to start the game and he never looks back! What he should he do? be horrible get in a big hole and comeback? Thats a horrible argument imo...

[Shallow]

Unlike my Elway/Manning pick this won't be as much of a surprise. I'm picking Young. He was better in every aspect in my opinion. Better runnner, better thrower, better scrambler, etc. He had the a great team when he got the chance to play but the problem was the teams he was playing were so incredible. In his prime the only times he was knocked out of the playoffs were by Green Bay and by Dallas and I don't see the Pats beating any of those teams in those years. The Pats squeezed by a lot of teams. Green Bay and dallas walked right through teams the years they beat SF. I'll say it till I die; If Tom Brady happened to have the bad luck of going to Buffalo or Houston we wouldn't know or care who he is. I think Steve Young would have at least dazzled us a little if he got to fully start a 16 game season with Tampa. And even more so if they let him do what he did best more often. In Tampa he ran over 200 yards in five games his first year and over 400 his second year in 14 games. Great athlete.

you make so many good points. But there is something special about Brady IMO. And when you say if Brady would have ended up in HOU nobody would care who he is. Well you could say that about Montana if he never had Walsh to run that west coast offense. Walsh taught him how to be a master in that offense. Brady>Young but not by much.

At risk of going too off topic, Monatana was more of a warrior in my opinion. He was a better college player and knew how to make big comebacks. He was also a better athlete. Do I think he'd have gotten 4 Superbowls with out Walsh? Absolutely not. But I think that no matter where he went he'd eventually get a team good enough for him to take to the big game. I think Brady could make a run on a team like Baltimore, Chicago, or Philly. I don't think he'd able to take teams like Indy, Cinci, or Oakland and St. Louis a couple years back anywhere. He simply lacks the ability to make certain throws and avoids making them for good reason, and teams like those with break out down the field WRs rely on the long ball over the shoulder catches. From what I've always seen Brady needs at least a pretty level slant to make throws down the field.


As for both Montana and Young I think they'd each have a field day against the 2001 St. Louis team at the Superbowl. I know Brady was still green at the time but even in his game against Carolina which I saw on NFL replay recently, if the guy wan't open in the short field  Brady rarely made the pass. Young could air it out if need be. He could buy time if need be. He could run if neeed be. And he could easily throw short balls. I just don't see how a New England team with with a younger Steve Young would lose the Superbowl runs they were in. And that year that Brady "carried NE on his back" he was lucky to play the Bills and Jets twice each and games with Oakland and New Orleans helped a lot (and Miami wasn't as good as their record that year). 8 of their 10 wins came against real losers of teams. If NE had a schedule like San Diego's that year you see a completely different win/loss record. In any other division I don't see NE making the playoffs that year.

I guess the bottom line is that if I had a bad team I'd pick Monatana and Young over Brady because I think they have a better chance at making a bad team play well. Anyone can win with a great team. Particularly a great defensive team with a an amazing west coast system. What guys like Vick did for Atlanta or Flutie did for Buffalo a guy like Brady could never do. Now I can see why Vick could screw things up in Indy with his attitude and poor passing but I'd like to hear someone explain to me why Doug Flutie would lose wih a team like the Pats. And Young and Monatana aren't erratic like Vick and jump to stupid decision or bad throws.

young and montana always had more weapons too, you could argue that for brady...

Bottom line..YOUD CHOOSE..but its all opinion...Montana is the only one i think that cant b argued..

Well I'm not trying to make it appear as if it is more than just my opinion, or that my opinion means more than any other football fan's. Now if the same guy were to have been the QB coach of both Young and Brady then his opinion I would consider over anyone else's.

Anyway, I'd compare Montana's pre-Rice weapons to Brady's. Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon were very good, particularly Clark. But Troy Brown and David Patten were a nice combo the first year and later on there was Givens and Branch added to the mix and all 4 played for a little while. On running the Smith/Faulk combo got the job done as well as the Craig etc group in San Fran. And Dillon was better the last couple years than any Montana runner. Allen was better than Dillon early on but I'll take Dillon '04, '05, '06 over Allen in his KC days. Of course neither can compare to the Rice, Owens, Stokes team that Young had, but I think he did pretty well given his play time during his second year in Tampa. I guess we'll never how he would have done with an average group of WRs long term. I think Monatana showed his grot when he went to KC and took them all the way to the AFC championship and maybe could have won it if he hadn't been taken out early with an injury. Of course if he did win and then somehow beat Dallas that year in the Superbowl then this whole Geatest QB poll would be pointless because Monatana would be the clear winner from the beginning.

The time will come when Brady ends up on a bad team with a tough schedule and we'll see what he does.

P.S. if Brady goes down next year with an injury and Cassel and NE goes to the AFC championship or win the Superbowl with Cassel, hypothetically speaking, will you then agree that the system was more imporant than the QB at NE, or will you argue that Cassel is better than Manning too? Just wondering.

I will say the system is damn good. Im sorry Montans system was just as good he played under as Brady's. Can you deny that?

Have I ever denied that? I will always say that the 80s Niners were better on both sides of the field than the Pats ever were. I just look at Montana before and after that run to say I'd take him over Brady. Montana has also proven to be a great come back guy. I don't think I've ever seen a big game comeback from Brady, and the ones I've seen in the season I haven't seen them done the same way I remember seeing Montana do them.

Brady starts off well in big games and gets his team a lead so they dont have to comeback all the time. You cant judge somebody on lack of comebacks.LOL! Look at the Steelers Title game 2 years ago. He throws 2 qucik TD's to start the game and he never looks back! What he should he do? be horrible get in a big hole and comeback? Thats a horrible argument imo...

It's nice to know someone can come back if needed. It's not so hard to succeed with time in the pocket and open men downfield. Rob Johnson could do well in that situation (I'm not saying Rob Johnson is even as good as Brady's left shoe, I'm just saying). You are over simplifying the Pit game and once again giving a lot of false credit to Brady. Big Ben's first pass was an INT on the 50 and NE still had to get a 48 yard FG. The next points came from a 60 yard TD to a pretty wide open Branch that followed a rare Bettis fumble. Brady had a nice percentage with 70% but he only made 14 completions for 200 yards. 24 of NE's points came on or right after Pit turnovers. Another 7 came off of a 25 yard run by Dillon. Another came after one more wide open Branch downfield. And the other FG was made after a slow running drive that took time off the clock. I don't think NE had one methodical passing drive in that whole game.

I know I take away from Brady, but this isn't a chcken and the egg. I'd see the games unfold and usually Brady would just be there while the defense creates turnovers, and the o-line creates holes and room. It's just what I thought of the guy while I was watching him play all these years. Long before he was publicized as a thorn in Manning's side. The annoyance came from the announcers and sports analysts. I remember when it started. It was the Oakland game in '01/'02. I was a big fan of the kid all season. He came out of nowhere and he helped NE win. They were the cinderella team with the cinderella QB. It was right after the tuck, which I cheered for when the refs called it that way because I remember not liking Oakland very much that year, can't remember why. but after the tuck NE gained some more yards and kicked that impossible kick to tie and then win. And all I heard by the announcers was Brady this and Brady that. My friends in the room were "oh man this guy's amazing". And I'm thinking "he fumbled the ball, got a break by the refs and then handed the ball off three times to set up a 45 yarder in the wind and snow. What's so amazing about that?". It didn't phase me at first because I still liked the Pats and I still liked Brady, plus I didn't like St. Louis, and I loved the underdog story. NE wins, Im happy, but then it starts again; "This kid Brady, etc etc etc." and I thought "wait a minute, he's not gonna win MVP with 16 completions and a 150 yards is he? Ty Law gave them a defensive TD. Buckley caused a key fumble. Vrabel and Seymour got a huge 9 yard sack to force a punt. McGinest got that huge 15 yard sack to force another punt. Someone on defense is getting this award. One great drive to cap off a mediocre game doesn't grant you MVP does it?" Well it did and the hype started. I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now. If he had over 200 yards, and over 20 completions I'd get it and I wouldn't complain. I mean I know QBs usually get it just for being QBs (Manning this year for example) but give some production at least. Of course I know Steeler fans that think Ben should have gotten Superbowl MVP last year and that is just ridiculous.


P.S. I also don't get why they let the clock run. There was still 2 seconds left and anything can happen on a kickoff. But I can live with that.

["THE" MoSav]

Unlike my Elway/Manning pick this won't be as much of a surprise. I'm picking Young. He was better in every aspect in my opinion. Better runnner, better thrower, better scrambler, etc. He had the a great team when he got the chance to play but the problem was the teams he was playing were so incredible. In his prime the only times he was knocked out of the playoffs were by Green Bay and by Dallas and I don't see the Pats beating any of those teams in those years. The Pats squeezed by a lot of teams. Green Bay and dallas walked right through teams the years they beat SF. I'll say it till I die; If Tom Brady happened to have the bad luck of going to Buffalo or Houston we wouldn't know or care who he is. I think Steve Young would have at least dazzled us a little if he got to fully start a 16 game season with Tampa. And even more so if they let him do what he did best more often. In Tampa he ran over 200 yards in five games his first year and over 400 his second year in 14 games. Great athlete.

you make so many good points. But there is something special about Brady IMO. And when you say if Brady would have ended up in HOU nobody would care who he is. Well you could say that about Montana if he never had Walsh to run that west coast offense. Walsh taught him how to be a master in that offense. Brady>Young but not by much.

At risk of going too off topic, Monatana was more of a warrior in my opinion. He was a better college player and knew how to make big comebacks. He was also a better athlete. Do I think he'd have gotten 4 Superbowls with out Walsh? Absolutely not. But I think that no matter where he went he'd eventually get a team good enough for him to take to the big game. I think Brady could make a run on a team like Baltimore, Chicago, or Philly. I don't think he'd able to take teams like Indy, Cinci, or Oakland and St. Louis a couple years back anywhere. He simply lacks the ability to make certain throws and avoids making them for good reason, and teams like those with break out down the field WRs rely on the long ball over the shoulder catches. From what I've always seen Brady needs at least a pretty level slant to make throws down the field.


As for both Montana and Young I think they'd each have a field day against the 2001 St. Louis team at the Superbowl. I know Brady was still green at the time but even in his game against Carolina which I saw on NFL replay recently, if the guy wan't open in the short field  Brady rarely made the pass. Young could air it out if need be. He could buy time if need be. He could run if neeed be. And he could easily throw short balls. I just don't see how a New England team with with a younger Steve Young would lose the Superbowl runs they were in. And that year that Brady "carried NE on his back" he was lucky to play the Bills and Jets twice each and games with Oakland and New Orleans helped a lot (and Miami wasn't as good as their record that year). 8 of their 10 wins came against real losers of teams. If NE had a schedule like San Diego's that year you see a completely different win/loss record. In any other division I don't see NE making the playoffs that year.

I guess the bottom line is that if I had a bad team I'd pick Monatana and Young over Brady because I think they have a better chance at making a bad team play well. Anyone can win with a great team. Particularly a great defensive team with a an amazing west coast system. What guys like Vick did for Atlanta or Flutie did for Buffalo a guy like Brady could never do. Now I can see why Vick could screw things up in Indy with his attitude and poor passing but I'd like to hear someone explain to me why Doug Flutie would lose wih a team like the Pats. And Young and Monatana aren't erratic like Vick and jump to stupid decision or bad throws.

young and montana always had more weapons too, you could argue that for brady...

Bottom line..YOUD CHOOSE..but its all opinion...Montana is the only one i think that cant b argued..

Well I'm not trying to make it appear as if it is more than just my opinion, or that my opinion means more than any other football fan's. Now if the same guy were to have been the QB coach of both Young and Brady then his opinion I would consider over anyone else's.

Anyway, I'd compare Montana's pre-Rice weapons to Brady's. Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon were very good, particularly Clark. But Troy Brown and David Patten were a nice combo the first year and later on there was Givens and Branch added to the mix and all 4 played for a little while. On running the Smith/Faulk combo got the job done as well as the Craig etc group in San Fran. And Dillon was better the last couple years than any Montana runner. Allen was better than Dillon early on but I'll take Dillon '04, '05, '06 over Allen in his KC days. Of course neither can compare to the Rice, Owens, Stokes team that Young had, but I think he did pretty well given his play time during his second year in Tampa. I guess we'll never how he would have done with an average group of WRs long term. I think Monatana showed his grot when he went to KC and took them all the way to the AFC championship and maybe could have won it if he hadn't been taken out early with an injury. Of course if he did win and then somehow beat Dallas that year in the Superbowl then this whole Geatest QB poll would be pointless because Monatana would be the clear winner from the beginning.

The time will come when Brady ends up on a bad team with a tough schedule and we'll see what he does.

P.S. if Brady goes down next year with an injury and Cassel and NE goes to the AFC championship or win the Superbowl with Cassel, hypothetically speaking, will you then agree that the system was more imporant than the QB at NE, or will you argue that Cassel is better than Manning too? Just wondering.

I will say the system is damn good. Im sorry Montans system was just as good he played under as Brady's. Can you deny that?

Have I ever denied that? I will always say that the 80s Niners were better on both sides of the field than the Pats ever were. I just look at Montana before and after that run to say I'd take him over Brady. Montana has also proven to be a great come back guy. I don't think I've ever seen a big game comeback from Brady, and the ones I've seen in the season I haven't seen them done the same way I remember seeing Montana do them.

Brady starts off well in big games and gets his team a lead so they dont have to comeback all the time. You cant judge somebody on lack of comebacks.LOL! Look at the Steelers Title game 2 years ago. He throws 2 qucik TD's to start the game and he never looks back! What he should he do? be horrible get in a big hole and comeback? Thats a horrible argument imo...

It's nice to know someone can come back if needed. It's not so hard to succeed with time in the pocket and open men downfield. Rob Johnson could do well in that situation (I'm not saying Rob Johnson is even as good as Brady's left shoe, I'm just saying). You are over simplifying the Pit game and once again giving a lot of false credit to Brady. Big Ben's first pass was an INT on the 50 and NE still had to get a 48 yard FG. The next points came from a 60 yard TD to a pretty wide open Branch that followed a rare Bettis fumble. Brady had a nice percentage with 70% but he only made 14 completions for 200 yards. 24 of NE's points came on or right after Pit turnovers. Another 7 came off of a 25 yard run by Dillon. Another came after one more wide open Branch downfield. And the other FG was made after a slow running drive that took time off the clock. I don't think NE had one methodical passing drive in that whole game.

I know I take away from Brady, but this isn't a chcken and the egg. I'd see the games unfold and usually Brady would just be there while the defense creates turnovers, and the o-line creates holes and room. It's just what I thought of the guy while I was watching him play all these years. Long before he was publicized as a thorn in Manning's side. The annoyance came from the announcers and sports analysts. I remember when it started. It was the Oakland game in '01/'02. I was a big fan of the kid all season. He came out of nowhere and he helped NE win. They were the cinderella team with the cinderella QB. It was right after the tuck, which I cheered for when the refs called it that way because I remember not liking Oakland very much that year, can't remember why. but after the tuck NE gained some more yards and kicked that impossible kick to tie and then win. And all I heard by the announcers was Brady this and Brady that. My friends in the room were "oh man this guy's amazing". And I'm thinking "he fumbled the ball, got a break by the refs and then handed the ball off three times to set up a 45 yarder in the wind and snow. What's so amazing about that?". It didn't phase me at first because I still liked the Pats and I still liked Brady, plus I didn't like St. Louis, and I loved the underdog story. NE wins, Im happy, but then it starts again; "This kid Brady, etc etc etc." and I thought "wait a minute, he's not gonna win MVP with 16 completions and a 150 yards is he? Ty Law gave them a defensive TD. Buckley caused a key fumble. Vrabel and Seymour got a huge 9 yard sack to force a punt. McGinest got that huge 15 yard sack to force another punt. Someone on defense is getting this award. One great drive to cap off a mediocre game doesn't grant you MVP does it?" Well it did and the hype started. I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now. If he had over 200 yards, and over 20 completions I'd get it and I wouldn't complain. I mean I know QBs usually get it just for being QBs (Manning this year for example) but give some production at least. Of course I know Steeler fans that think Ben should have gotten Superbowl MVP last year and that is just ridiculous.


P.S. I also don't get why they let the clock run. There was still 2 seconds left and anything can happen on a kickoff. But I can live with that.

dude of course he only had 200 yds and 14 completions, they ran the ball because they had a big lead. Whats he supposed to do? Disobey the coach?
and Peyton manning won the MVP in the SB when easily it could have been Rhodes IMO..

[Shallow]

They never had that much of a lead for long. But that's beside the point. They didn't use Brady much; understandable, but that doesn't make him more of a candidate for MVP. My guess is rhey didn't know which defensive guy to give it to because so many made so many key plays that they just gave it to the QB because he's the QB. At least Manning put of strong numbers in his performance, and could have put a lot more up if he wanted to but he chose to let the ball run. Rhodes only really played half a game. And it's hard to give it to a guy that isn't full time. Plus the long ball threat was the main reason the run and short pass did so well. Chicago didn't want another wide open man downfield like what happened with Wayne. But it could have happened. Like when Cedric Maxwell was named MVP in the NBA Finals after a great performance. Everyone was so worried about Bird they left Maxwell alone, but rest assured you take Larry Bird off that court and there's no Championship or MVP award for anyone on the Celtics. In this case I think the threat of Manning was as important as Manning himself that day. Factor in what I said earlier about the QB getting the break, and the fact that this was a story book moment for Manning and they had to pick Manning. If this wasn't the first Superbowl for Peyton then it could have easily went to Sanders and maybe an Addai/Rhodes combo. But we all know that Rex Grossman was the real MVP.