Even if he wins 4th ring, Brady’s no Montana

[Brother Buzz]

Even if he wins 4th ring, Brady’s no Montana

Think there’s nothing at stake for a Bay Area football fan in this year’s Super Bowl?

Think again.

Joe Montana’s legacy is on the line. With a New Super Bowl win on Sunday, Tom Brady — who grew up on the Peninsula idolizing Montana — will match the 49ers’ quarterback’s record with four Super Bowl wins.

The only quarterbacks to win four Super Bowls are Montana and Terry Bradshaw. Bradshaw isn’t part of the “greatest of all time” conversation, because his Pittsburgh teams were centered on defense, and he didn’t have the type of offensive numbers or skill to enter the pantheon of greatest-ever quarterbacks.

For people who count championships, Montana is considered the best ever. Hard to get much argument about that in these parts. Today’s generation might know him as the guy scarfing down Peyton Manning’s extra pizza or flashing his four Super Bowl rings at some other old men in a phone commercial, but those who watched him play knew they were watching history. Watching the best.

Now Brady is, once again, making a bid to be considered Montana’s equal, or even his superior, if he beats the Seahawks on Sunday. This is Brady’s third shot at Super Bowl victory No. 4. And we’ll get back to that issue a little later.

The East Coast media machine already has cranked up the story line: Brady will be considered the best ever if the Patriots win Super Bowl XLIX.

Why? Because, the East Coast reasoning goes, Brady has had less talent around him. His excellence has lasted longer. He is working in an era of free agency, in which it’s harder to keep good teams together. He came back as good as ever from 2008 reconstructive knee surgery. He is the shining light and reason behind the Patriots’ success.

Listen, there’s no doubt that Brady’s career is mind-boggling. Now 37, this will be his sixth Super Bowl appearance in 14 seasons. He has played in nine AFC Championship Games.

But here at West Coast Central, we’re not buying that one more ring means Brady will pull even with or surpass Montana. Not for a second.

Sure, Brady plays in a different era — but the biggest difference isn’t free agency but how much protection the quarterback gets. League rules now are designed to keep the quarterback upright, successful and playing for years. Montana didn’t have that advantage.

Montana had more talented teams? Let’s not forget that Jerry Rice teamed with Montana for only two Super Bowls. That first 49ers Super Bowl team in January 1982? Earl Cooper, Bill Ring, Ricky Patton — Montana’s teammates in that game in Pontiac, Mich., make Brady’s first Super Bowl team look like an All-Star roster.

Bill Belichick is as responsible for the Patriots’ success as Brady. Montana also shared the credit and glory with Bill Walsh. One difference: Montana was able to continue his greatness without Walsh, leading the 49ers to the Super Bowl the year after Walsh stepped down and George Seifert took the job.

Let’s look at the numbers:

Brady: Six Super Bowls in 14 seasons. Nine conference championship games.

Montana: Four Super Bowls in nine seasons. Six championship games in 10 seasons, plus one more in 1993 with the Chiefs.

Brady: Two interceptions in Super Bowls.

Montana: Zero interceptions in Super Bowls.

Brady: Super Bowl quarterback rating of 93.8.

Montana: Super Bowl quarterback rating of 127.8.

But here’s the biggie:

Montana: 4-0 in Super Bowls.

Brady: 3-2 in Super Bowls.

Montana didn’t need three shots at the fourth ring. He did not lose when he got to his sport’s biggest stage. He won in runaway fashion and he won with a breathtaking comeback. But he always won.

Then there are intangibles that help shape the legacy. Brady’s Patriots, as Raiders fans painfully can tell you, made it to their first Super Bowl only thanks to the incredibly stupid tuck rule. They haven’t won a Super Bowl since Spygate in 2007, tarnishing their franchise’s reputation. And they enter this Super Bowl under the dark cloud of Deflategate, which reflects more poorly on Brady than on anyone else with the Patriots.

Montana’s 49ers didn’t have any of those cloak-and-dagger issues. None of that controversy.

Oh, and to add to his legend, Montana had back surgery in 1986 — many thought his career was over — between his second and third Super Bowl wins. In fact, doctors told him he should retire.

He didn’t. He won two more Super Bowls and played in four more championship games, before finally retiring at age 38, after two seasons in Kansas City.

And when he gave up the game, many were sure they’d witnessed the greatest ever. Their eyes didn’t lie.

“Joe Montana,” Hall of Fame quarterback Troy Aikman immediately answered a few months ago, when asked to name the best ever. “And I don’t care if we’re comparing him against anyone from today’s game or not. Or what his numbers may or may not look like. I saw him do it on the biggest stage, in the biggest moments, and bring his team back. And do the things that I think are required of the position.”

Many think Brady won’t make this conversation even relevant, that he will lose for the third time in the Super Bowl when he faces the Seahawks.

But if Brady wins that fourth ring, we here at West Coast Central still think he’ll be only second best in the conversation about the greatest ever.

Ann Killion is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. E-mail: [e-mail] Twitter: @annkillion


http://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/Even-if-he-wins-4th-ring-Brady-s-no-Montana-6041560.php

[hughee99]

1. While I agree with the article, what happens if Brady wins 5 or 6 SB's?

No, I don't think that's likely (I'm not even sure he'll win 4), but he's not retiring just yet either, as far as I know.

[Brother Buzz]

2. We'll talk about it if it comes to that

Brady needs to win number four first, "This time for sure."

[trotsky]

5. Even if he wins 10, they'll all have asterisks now. n/t

[hughee99]

6. Now? Some people have been saying that since 2007.

Was Spygate not sufficient, but now the inflation issue is what put you over the top?

[trotsky]

7. Spygate was bad.

But I don't think there was any evidence Belichick was doing that prior to 2005/2006, was there? Plus, let's be real, the only illegal part about spygate was taping and saving opponent's signals. You could simply hire someone to observe and write down signals, couldn't you? Granted, it did show Belichick was willing to ignore rules.

Now we have deflategate, which shows a blatant disregard for rules that directly affect gameplay and not just strategy. It's a much bigger issue.

Why did the Pats get so much better at preventing fumbles after 2006? Hadn't Belichick been benching fumblers the whole time? Why do players who have been Patriots suddenly start fumbling more when they play for other teams?

[hughee99]

9. Have they been deflating balls in all the games since 2007? I guess it's possible.

Now if I understand correctly (because I've heard many people say it over the last 2 weeks) anyone who "knows footballs" at all can pretty easily tell the difference between a properly inflated football and one that's under-inflated by 2 PSI. This would mean that every Patriots QB, RB, WR, TE, Center, the people who caught Brady's 65 interceptions over that time, the dozens of Patriot and non-Patriot players that recovered the fumbles they did have, every guy on the sidelines who caught, picked up or threw back one of those passes when Brady tossed a ball out of bounds, and, of course, every official in basically every one of the last 128 games (not including playoffs) would have had to keep their mouth shut. Some for as many as 8 years and many who no longer (or never did) have ANY allegiance to the Patriots. No one told a reporter, and from what I'm seeing so far, no one told the league (Although if someone had told the league, that opens up a whole different can of worms).

I'm sorry, but I'll bet that's statistically LESS likely than the drop in fumbles occurring naturally.

I've read some interesting statistical analysis work on the fumble issue, here's another one:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710

[mythology]

12. It's also possible that relatively few people were in on it

Both Brady and Belichick are notorious control freaks and it would really only take them and a couple of equipment people.

It would help to compare the fumble rates of players before/after being on the Patriots against their fumble rates while on the Patriots.

It would be especially telling if they fumbled more after leaving since no NFL player wants to fumble, so if they knew of an edge that New England had developed in terms of coaching players to not fumble, they would bring it to the new team. Whereas if the ball was altered without their knowledge, they wouldn't know to take it to another team.

It's just at the least very suspicious timing that the fumble rate dropped so dramatically at that same point. It could be pure coincidence, but once you've already been busted for cheating (or if you want to take the most pro-Belichick position possible, misinterpreting a rule, one that was specifically noted by the NFL as being illegal), you kind of lose the ability to have others assume you aren't cheating (or misinterpreting the rules) again.

[hughee99]

13. I agree that it's suspicious, but even if a small number of people are in on the process of

deflating the balls, a much larger number of people would still have to be aware that the balls were deflated and didn't say or do anything about it for years. Many of those people have no allegiance to the Pats, so pissing off Belicheck or Brady wouldn't mean anything to them, in fact it might be an added bonus.

My suspicion (which I have no evidence for) is that the Pats have probably been doing this for years, and that the refs "pregame check" of the balls consists of a ref squeezing some of the balls and declaring them fit for play rather than putting an actual gauge on them to confirm that they're legal. Maybe a few of the teams over or under inflate the balls, and if the standard isn't strictly enforced, the balls tend to be inconsistent from team to team which is why no one, including the refs, actually said anything until they were called on it. I think it's more than possible that the balls were simply submitted under-inflated and the refs half-assed the pregame check. It doesn't clear the Pats at all, but it seems like it would be a rather simple explanation about what happened to the balls in the Colts game... Of course, the Pats will never admit to submitting under inflated balls and the refs won't admit to half-assing the pregame check, so instead we have a bunch of sports reporters and college professors trying to apply the Ideal Gas Law, which explains how changes in temperature affect pressure, to make their arguments.

[hughee99]

16. As it turns out, some of Montana's might have themselves an asterisk as well.

Last edited Sat Feb 7, 2015, 04:24 PM - Edit history (1)

Jerry Rice was quick to call out the Pats for cheating because of the deflation issue, although he admitted to cheating by using the banned substance "stickum" on his gloves.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/07/jerry-rice-admits-to-cheating-says-everyone-did-it/

[GeorgeGist]

3. Sportswriters are dumb.

[trumad]

4. shit...

Well the writer is using Super Bowls as the example. ..if Brady gets his 4th...that ties Joe for Rings... and Brady has made it to the SB a couple more times than Joe.

A miracle catch by Tyree...a Wes Welker miss...Brady could have 5 rings already.

Dumb piece by a sycophant sports writer.

[Auggie]

8. Someone at the Chronicle was going to write that article ...

and Killion was either assigned or volunteered. I think she did a good job, though she could have dug a little deeper in the most telling assessment IMO -- peer consensus. You'd find a lot of players (and coaches) besides those cited who would choose Montana over Brady in a big game.

There are going to be issues any time performance comparisons are between different eras. It's a thankless job for a reporter but as I said, someone from San Francisco had to write it. Killion is a fine columnist and I respect her opinions immensely.

Montana could have a had a chance at a fifth ring had tackle Bubba Paris blocked better in the 1991 conference game versus the Giants (and Roger Graig not fumbled in the last minutes). He was seriously hurting too.

[Yavin4]

10. Montana had to overcome much stiffer competition to win his 4 rings

He had to beat out the Cowboys, Giants, Bears, Redskins, and even the Rams to win his championships.

The Pats play in the worst division in all of the NFL which they win without even really trying.

[bigwillq]

14. Some of those NYGiants-San Fran games were unbelievable.

I am a Giants fan.

[Auggie]

15. Yes they were

The '91 Conference game, which I mentioned elsewhere. And there's that Monday night game from a few months earlier on Dec. 3 that the 49ers won 7-3. Simms and Lott really got into it and can be seen at 7:56 right after time expired (the entire game is on YouTube -- wow!)

[Capt. Obvious]

17. How true

The 49ers had to fend off the powerhouse New Orleans Saints, Los Angelas Rams, and Atlanta Falcons.

[Yavin4]

18. How about the Bears, Redskins, and Giants just to make the bowl

Far stiffer than the Manning/Luck Colts or the Rothlisberger Steelers or the Ravens.

[Capt. Obvious]

19. You mean the Colts, Steelers and Ravens that won 5 Super Bowls since 2000?

Last edited Mon Feb 9, 2015, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)

Not as good as the 5 Super Bowls won by the Bears, Redskins, and Giants during Montana's day?

ETA: 6 Super Bowls won by the Bears, Redskins, and Giants. I forgot the Bills one.

[navarth]

11. While we're having fun with this deeply consequential stuff

I wonder what the comparison would be with Bobby Layne, the Lions quarterback in days of yore? Before the Super Bowl, the Lions won 4 championships. Different world to be sure.

Might be fun to do the comparison, but I lack the time and energy required.