Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Composure and calm emit confidence. Guys buy into that in the huddle. Good qualities to have. Backed up by performance.

Everyone has their own style.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by midrdan:

Here is where eras truly make a difference:

Between 1981 and 1996, the average offensive and defensive combined ranking of the eventual SB winner was 4. An example of this would be a team ranked No. 1 in offense and No. 3 in defense (for a combined ranking of 4)

Only one team during the 49ers dynasty era won a SB with a defense outside of the top 10 - the 1983 Raiders. Only one team won with an offense outside of the top 10 - the 1990 Giants.

You had to be stacked to win the SB in that era.

Conversely, between 2001 and 2016 (the Pats dynasty) the average offensive and defensive combined ranking of the eventual SB winner was 9.5. More than double a decline. You had teams in this era win the SB with the 25th rated defense (Giants) or the 20th rated offense (Steelers). And many more examples of lopsided teams (good on offense mediocre on defense or vice versa).

The 2007 Giants, who toppled the all time amazing undefeated Patriots are the only team ever to win a SB finishing outside the top 10 in both offense (14th) and defense (17th) rankings. By comparison, the 1989 Saints finished better than the Giants in both categories - and finished 9-7 - and missed the playoffs.

The show back then was for the elite. Now anyone can participate. It waters down what the Patriots have accomplished.

Great post. Let's see what the Brady supporters have to say about this......well besides being in denial

You guys are really having a hard time following logic huh?

You're comparing non salary cap era teams to salary cap era teams.

Is it easier to keep a star studded roster when you don't have a salary cap to get under or is it harder when you have a limit what you can pay your players and have to watch some of your top guys leave via free agency?

The idea that it waters down what the Pats have done when they're playing in the salary cap era and cannot keep some of their top talent is silly. If anything you can argue it's harder to win when the talent is spread out and your roster is constantly changing. Baseball is a perfect example of this. Are the Yankees that much better than the rest of the teams or did they have the money to sign every good player available and keep their own studs from leaving?

No it seems you are having a really difficult time grasping logic and some common sense. It's a lot easier to beat teams now that the league has parity if you have a good or great qb. A lot of times that is all you need to separate teams nowadays. Teams are lacking on either offense or defense but rarely have both. The miners with Montana may have been able to keep great talent BUT so did the giants bears redskins and other great teams in the 80s. That is why these pats teams would of got destroyed. It was much harder to win back then.

Nowadays all the pats have to do is beat maybe the steelers in the afc or a good NFC team here and there. Hope this lesson was easy to follow.

Originally posted by mayo49:

If it wasn't for two miracle catches by the Giants, Brady would have 7 Super Bowls.

If it wasn't for the worst play calling against the Seahawks falcons brady would of lost 2 more
If it wasn't for the tuck rule Brady would of never had another one.

So it's a lot more likely Brady is closer to being .500 in sbs than anything.

Originally posted by natediaz:

so by your logic, Ali isn't the greatest boxer because he lost few fights, right? and i guess mark spitz is better than michael phelps because phelps had way more 2nd place than spitz?

football is the ultimate team sports. montana didn't win 4 SBs by himself. brady didn't win 5SBs by himself. it's the game of the inches and there are too many variables. when you determine the GOAT you look at everything. SB would count probably 50% of the argument. but there are other factors.

i don't want to get into deflategate because i know it's a hogwash. seriously, a 7 year old kid debunked everything. it's not a rocket science. and it's really retarded how they dragged this thing for so long. Brady played fine with a perfectly inflated football in SB 49 and SB 51. he did fine with this year with 28tds and only 2tds.

No and please don't put words in my mouth. You assumed wrong like most of this thread your logic is flawed as well as your short sighted arguments. Montana is the goat for many reasons and Brady is 2. Michael Jordan has lost games but he is the goat. Montana is just a lot more clutch than Brady and played against way harder competition. Done

Sorry I had to sign up and chime in. This is a 49er board so obviously you are going to be biased towards Montana. And thinking Joe is the best is certainly a solid opinion. I just think there are some things discussed here that are just too one sided or just plain wrong.

The main thing that is very over rated is how much tougher it was to pass in Montana's era. That's pretty much a myth communicated by mostly ex QBs who played back in the day. Receivers were not mauled up and down the field back then. If you don't want to believe me the NFL now let's users DL games on youtube, so go check the games out yourself. Also QBs get hit every bit as hard and quite honestly harder than they have ever been. Less shots to the knees and heads for sure as defenders are conscious of penalties but they still do get hit very hard. Ask Cam Newton if he gets hit in the head or knees and if it hurts. Phil Simms recently talked about saying to a referee how easy it is for QBs today and the ref told Phil he was wrong. QBs are getting hit a lot harder today than ever before. Players are bigger stronger and faster etc...

The salary cap era argument goes both ways. Yes teams would be more talented back then but that also means Montana was working with a more talented team back then too. The talent the 49ers continuously had for 16+ years was incredible, every bit as much on defense. Brady faces teams with less talent but has less talent on his team. It's an even playing field except players today are bigger stronger faster.

Joe was amazing in SBs but that is only 4 games. Who's to say what his record and stats would be if he played in 3 more? Fact his, he and the 49ers weren't good enough to win more NFC championship games or other playoff games. Brady lost to the Giants in two last second losses both in SBs, while Joe had back to back one and dones vs Giants (throwing 3 ints and 0 tds) but they were just playoff games so we don't talk a out them.

Bottom line, in the end, over the course of a long career, you are what you are. Brady and Montana both won a lot. Both are statistically elite among their piers, both were clutch. However the numbers show Brady was just a little better in each. If Montana is your guy then there is nothing I said here that will change your mind, and it's cool. I'm just pretty sure the vast majority of the rest of the world who don't have a bias (actually many hate Brady) towards either will say Brady is GOAT. Nothing more he could do, If he isn't better than Joe in your mind, then no one can ever be. Because no one in our lifetime is going to do what Brady has done.

Originally posted by elguapo:
If it wasn't for the worst play calling against the Seahawks falcons brady would of lost 2 more
If it wasn't for the tuck rule Brady would of never had another one.

So it's a lot more likely Brady is closer to being .500 in sbs than anything.

And yet he's not.

Originally posted by Vegasodds101:

Sorry I had to sign up and chime in. This is a 49er board so obviously you are going to be biased towards Montana. And thinking Joe is the best is certainly a solid opinion. I just think there are some things discussed here that are just too one sided or just plain wrong.

The main thing that is very over rated is how much tougher it was to pass in Montana's era. That's pretty much a myth communicated by mostly ex QBs who played back in the day. Receivers were not mauled up and down the field back then. If you don't want to believe me the NFL now let's users DL games on youtube, so go check the games out yourself. Also QBs get hit every bit as hard and quite honestly harder than they have ever been. Less shots to the knees and heads for sure as defenders are conscious of penalties but they still do get hit very hard. Ask Cam Newton if he gets hit in the head or knees and if it hurts. Phil Simms recently talked about saying to a referee how easy it is for QBs today and the ref told Phil he was wrong. QBs are getting hit a lot harder today than ever before. Players are bigger stronger and faster etc...

The salary cap era argument goes both ways. Yes teams would be more talented back then but that also means Montana was working with a more talented team back then too. The talent the 49ers continuously had for 16+ years was incredible, every bit as much on defense. Brady faces teams with less talent but has less talent on his team. It's an even playing field except players today are bigger stronger faster.

Joe was amazing in SBs but that is only 4 games. Who's to say what his record and stats would be if he played in 3 more? Fact his, he and the 49ers weren't good enough to win more NFC championship games or other playoff games. Brady lost to the Giants in two last second losses both in SBs, while Joe had back to back one and dones vs Giants (throwing 3 ints and 0 tds) but they were just playoff games so we don't talk a out them.

Bottom line, in the end, over the course of a long career, you are what you are. Brady and Montana both won a lot. Both are statistically elite among their piers, both were clutch. However the numbers show Brady was just a little better in each. If Montana is your guy then there is nothing I said here that will change your mind, and it's cool. I'm just pretty sure the vast majority of the rest of the world who don't have a bias (actually many hate Brady) towards either will say Brady is GOAT. Nothing more he could do, If he isn't better than Joe in your mind, then no one can ever be. Because no one in our lifetime is going to do what Brady has done.

A couple of points here:

1. The rules back then allowed WRs to be touched 5 yards or more down the field. It isn't that they were getting mauled. But checking, grabbing, etc. was legal.

2. The rules today prevent QBs from getting hit above the shoulders and below the waist. They may still get trucked by bigger players but look at the hit that knocked Montana out of the NFC Championship game. Marshall lowered his helmet into the back of Montana's neck and head. That hit would be illegal today and players are now taught to not hit that way. These rules have allowed guys to play into their late 30s.

3. It was simply harder to get to SBs when Joe played. You fault the guy for only playing in 4 SBs, but that is because his teams were playing truly great teams in the playoffs. The 86 and 90 Giants won the SB. The 83 Redskins lost SB but frankly the 49ers should have won that championship game but for the phantom PI on Lott. And the Redskins did win 3 others.

Brady has been to 7 SBs ... crazy good. But name the dominant teams they have had to go through over the years. In today's NFL if you have a great QB and a mediocre team you have a shot at the SB. How did that formula pan out for Elway or Marino in the 1980s? Once they played the Giants/Redskins/49ers they got rolled.

The 1980s were a 3 or 4 team league and they all played in the same conference. Now? Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Seattle, Saints, Green Bay, St. Louis, Giants win SBs and then miss the playoffs the next year ... it's a wide open league. Credit goes to NE in this era for maintaining consistent success but the fact is they haven't had to consistently play a few juggernauts every year.

How many SBs would the 49ers have won if they had Montana, Rice and Lott for a decade and the Bears couldn't keep their defense, the Giants couldn't afford a back up like Hostetler, and the Redskins couldn't keep their entire O Line for a decade? You think Walsh wouldn't have been able to coach in the salary cap era if he had his 7-8 core guys? He won SBs with three different WR lineups, two different backfields, three different DLs, etc.

The niners were stacked because of the draft - the 86 draft was epic. And all those dudes would have still been playing under their rookie contracts in the 88 and 89 SBs.

Originally posted by midrdan:

A couple of points here:

1. The rules back then allowed WRs to be touched 5 yards or more down the field. It isn't that they were getting mauled. But checking, grabbing, etc. was legal.

2. The rules today prevent QBs from getting hit above the shoulders and below the waist. They may still get trucked by bigger players but look at the hit that knocked Montana out of the NFC Championship game. Marshall lowered his helmet into the back of Montana's neck and head. That hit would be illegal today and players are now taught to not hit that way. These rules have allowed guys to play into their late 30s.

3. It was simply harder to get to SBs when Joe played. You fault the guy for only playing in 4 SBs, but that is because his teams were playing truly great teams in the playoffs. The 86 and 90 Giants won the SB. The 83 Redskins lost SB but frankly the 49ers should have won that championship game but for the phantom PI on Lott. And the Redskins did win 3 others.

Brady has been to 7 SBs ... crazy good. But name the dominant teams they have had to go through over the years. In today's NFL if you have a great QB and a mediocre team you have a shot at the SB. How did that formula pan out for Elway or Marino in the 1980s? Once they played the Giants/Redskins/49ers they got rolled.

The 1980s were a 3 or 4 team league and they all played in the same conference. Now? Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Seattle, Saints, Green Bay, St. Louis, Giants win SBs and then miss the playoffs the next year ... it's a wide open league. Credit goes to NE in this era for maintaining consistent success but the fact is they haven't had to consistently play a few juggernauts every year.

How many SBs would the 49ers have won if they had Montana, Rice and Lott for a decade and the Bears couldn't keep their defense, the Giants couldn't afford a back up like Hostetler, and the Redskins couldn't keep their entire O Line for a decade? You think Walsh wouldn't have been able to coach in the salary cap era if he had his 7-8 core guys? He won SBs with three different WR lineups, two different backfields, three different DLs, etc.

The niners were stacked because of the draft - the 86 draft was epic. And all those dudes would have still been playing under their rookie contracts in the 88 and 89 SBs.

Hey Midrdan good post.....What you touched upon was some what I was trying to get across in my first post. Saying what if Montana Lott and Rice got to play the Bears who couldn't keep their defense is just one sided and not quite Apples to Apples. Brady has never been able to keep a top WR, nevermind the caliber of Rice. Edelman and Welker, who are not on the same planet as Rice when it comes to WRs, the Patriots retained for nice stretches but I think Brady has had at least 5 if not 6 completely different sets of Wrs. IMO that's a big advantage for Joe.

I agree the teams aren't quite as stacked now as back then but Patriots still had to get by some very good Steelers, Ravens, Colts teams during an AFC dominant 2000's decade (Broncos this decade). Teams whose players are bigger faster stronger than those of 30 years ago, just not as many pro bowlers. The point is there is no point to this argument. It's an even playing field and has no bearing on who was better IMO. Especially considering IMO QBs overall have gotten better with every generation. They themselves are a lot bigger and stronger and smarter...not going to say faster...lol.

Finally, you are correct that in this salary cap era a team can be a SB contender one year and below .500 the next. You have decided to use that against Brady where I use that as an argument for Brady. Every team goes up and down in this era but with Brady leading the Patriots they haven't had a let down. An 11 win season is a let down for them. Also Bears and Giants had about 5 year runs each compared to Steelers and Ravens who have been competition for Pats in more years. Redskins were a more consistant challenge for Joe much like the Colts who had double digit wins in 12 out of 13 seasons were for Brady.

I am almost 50, and I truly do believe people tend to over exaggerate a player or teams greatness as the years go by. Joe is all time great but he wasn't flawless and had some great advantages with great teammates and great coaching, playing in a new system defenses just had trouble figuring out ( and I give Joe credit for that too). Defenses today know how to defend the west coast offense, defenses today are much more sophisticated. The Bears 46 defense was a phenomenon, today it's obsolete. Brady, even with his little receivers would rip that defense apart, zero doubt in my mind.

Originally posted by Vegasodds101:

Hey Midrdan good post.....What you touched upon was some what I was trying to get across in my first post. Saying what if Montana Lott and Rice got to play the Bears who couldn't keep their defense is just one sided and not quite Apples to Apples. Brady has never been able to keep a top WR, nevermind the caliber of Rice. Edelman and Welker, who are not on the same planet as Rice when it comes to WRs, the Patriots retained for nice stretches but I think Brady has had at least 5 if not 6 completely different sets of Wrs. IMO that's a big advantage for Joe.

I agree the teams aren't quite as stacked now as back then but Patriots still had to get by some very good Steelers, Ravens, Colts teams during an AFC dominant 2000's decade (Broncos this decade). Teams whose players are bigger faster stronger than those of 30 years ago, just not as many pro bowlers. The point is there is no point to this argument. It's an even playing field and has no bearing on who was better IMO. Especially considering IMO QBs overall have gotten better with every generation. They themselves are a lot bigger and stronger and smarter...not going to say faster...lol.

Finally, you are correct that in this salary cap era a team can be a SB contender one year and below .500 the next. You have decided to use that against Brady where I use that as an argument for Brady. Every team goes up and down in this era but with Brady leading the Patriots they haven't had a let down. An 11 win season is a let down for them. Also Bears and Giants had about 5 year runs each compared to Steelers and Ravens who have been competition for Pats in more years. Redskins were a more consistant challenge for Joe much like the Colts who had double digit wins in 12 out of 13 seasons were for Brady.

I am almost 50, and I truly do believe people tend to over exaggerate a player or teams greatness as the years go by. Joe is all time great but he wasn't flawless and had some great advantages with great teammates and great coaching, playing in a new system defenses just had trouble figuring out ( and I give Joe credit for that too). Defenses today know how to defend the west coast offense, defenses today are much more sophisticated. The Bears 46 defense was a phenomenon, today it's obsolete. Brady, even with his little receivers would rip that defense apart, zero doubt in my mind.

The concepts of the WCO are seen in pretty much every offense in pro ball. They've proven to be timeless. What has changed is formation usage and personnel packages. The game of football has been pretty sophisticated for going on over 30+ years. Nowadays, teams rely much more multi wide sets and gun formations. But the actual concepts behind the plays have been in football for years.

For example, these following plays were illustrated on espn as being some of the pats top plays. These plays are about a bread and butter WCO as can be:

Here's an early 90s niners playbook version



Here's the same slant-flat from 1982 Walsh book

The only differences are the formations used and the personnel packages.

As for the 46, that was more of a sub package for the bears and teams even as early as 1986-87 was getting the bears out of their 46 package. Joe Gibbs had a fabulous plan against it in the '86 playoffs and the niners torched it a couple of times after they got stymied by it in the 1985 regular season.

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by Vegasodds101:

Hey Midrdan good post.....What you touched upon was some what I was trying to get across in my first post. Saying what if Montana Lott and Rice got to play the Bears who couldn't keep their defense is just one sided and not quite Apples to Apples. Brady has never been able to keep a top WR, nevermind the caliber of Rice. Edelman and Welker, who are not on the same planet as Rice when it comes to WRs, the Patriots retained for nice stretches but I think Brady has had at least 5 if not 6 completely different sets of Wrs. IMO that's a big advantage for Joe.

I agree the teams aren't quite as stacked now as back then but Patriots still had to get by some very good Steelers, Ravens, Colts teams during an AFC dominant 2000's decade (Broncos this decade). Teams whose players are bigger faster stronger than those of 30 years ago, just not as many pro bowlers. The point is there is no point to this argument. It's an even playing field and has no bearing on who was better IMO. Especially considering IMO QBs overall have gotten better with every generation. They themselves are a lot bigger and stronger and smarter...not going to say faster...lol.

Finally, you are correct that in this salary cap era a team can be a SB contender one year and below .500 the next. You have decided to use that against Brady where I use that as an argument for Brady. Every team goes up and down in this era but with Brady leading the Patriots they haven't had a let down. An 11 win season is a let down for them. Also Bears and Giants had about 5 year runs each compared to Steelers and Ravens who have been competition for Pats in more years. Redskins were a more consistant challenge for Joe much like the Colts who had double digit wins in 12 out of 13 seasons were for Brady.

I am almost 50, and I truly do believe people tend to over exaggerate a player or teams greatness as the years go by. Joe is all time great but he wasn't flawless and had some great advantages with great teammates and great coaching, playing in a new system defenses just had trouble figuring out ( and I give Joe credit for that too). Defenses today know how to defend the west coast offense, defenses today are much more sophisticated. The Bears 46 defense was a phenomenon, today it's obsolete. Brady, even with his little receivers would rip that defense apart, zero doubt in my mind.

The concepts of the WCO are seen in pretty much every offense in pro ball. They've proven to be timeless. What has changed is formation usage and personnel packages. The game of football has been pretty sophisticated for going on over 30+ years. Nowadays, teams rely much more multi wide sets and gun formations. But the actual concepts behind the plays have been in football for years.

For example, these following plays were illustrated on espn as being some of the pats top plays. These plays are about a bread and butter WCO as can be:

Here's an early 90s niners playbook version



Here's the same slant-flat from 1982 Walsh book


As for the 46, that was more of a sub package for the bears and teams even as early as 1986-87 was getting the bears out of their 46 package. Joe Gibbs had a fabulous plan against it in the '86 playoffs and the niners torched it a couple of times after they got stymied by it in the 1985 regular season.

Don't forget the defense Buddy Ryan presented that roughed up Montana bad until he found a way to beat the Eagles.

Originally posted by Niners816:

The concepts of the WCO are seen in pretty much every offense in pro ball. They've proven to be timeless. What has changed is formation usage and personnel packages. The game of football has been pretty sophisticated for going on over 30+ years. Nowadays, teams rely much more multi wide sets and gun formations. But the actual concepts behind the plays have been in football for years.

For example, these following plays were illustrated on espn as being some of the pats top plays. These plays are about a bread and butter WCO as can be:

Here's an early 90s niners playbook version



Here's the same slant-flat from 1982 Walsh book

The only differences are the formations used and the personnel packages.

As for the 46, that was more of a sub package for the bears and teams even as early as 1986-87 was getting the bears out of their 46 package. Joe Gibbs had a fabulous plan against it in the '86 playoffs and the niners torched it a couple of times after they got stymied by it in the 1985 regular season.

Absolutely correct

Originally posted by Niners816:

The concepts of the WCO are seen in pretty much every offense in pro ball. They've proven to be timeless. What has changed is formation usage and personnel packages. The game of football has been pretty sophisticated for going on over 30+ years. Nowadays, teams rely much more multi wide sets and gun formations. But the actual concepts behind the plays have been in football for years.

For example, these following plays were illustrated on espn as being some of the pats top plays. These plays are about a bread and butter WCO as can be:

Here's an early 90s niners playbook version



Here's the same slant-flat from 1982 Walsh book

The only differences are the formations used and the personnel packages.

As for the 46, that was more of a sub package for the bears and teams even as early as 1986-87 was getting the bears out of their 46 package. Joe Gibbs had a fabulous plan against it in the '86 playoffs and the niners torched it a couple of times after they got stymied by it in the 1985 regular season.

Absolutely right on with everything you said...great job. It's why I do think Joe had an advantage, he was the lucky one running it first ( along with him being all time great). Defenses took a while to get used to it. Defenses now have ways and plans to defend it much better than 30 years ago. The spread offense such a good system if it is run efficiently and is very hard to stop especiAlly if you have a running game. But as Brady has shown, you don't need a running game, just a pass catching running back to succeed if you are an elite QB.

Originally posted by Vegasodds101:

Absolutely correct

Absolutely right on with everything you said...great job. It's why I do think Joe had an advantage, he was the lucky one running it first ( along with him being all time great). Defenses took a while to get used to it. Defenses now have ways and plans to defend it much better than 30 years ago. The spread offense such a good system if it is run efficiently and is very hard to stop especiAlly if you have a running game. But as Brady has shown, you don't need a running game, just a pass catching running back to succeed if you are an elite QB.

Walsh actually developed the WCO while he was an assistant with cincy in the 70s. So the league had seen the basis of the WCO for about a decade before he started excelling with it in SF. I think Joe's success was more due to him being the absolute perfect fit and prototype for the WCO. Walsh's genius was fitting his scheme to his QB.

It was just the perfect storm of an all time great coach with an all time great QB and that's why they excelled. That's the same reason why Brady is doing what he's doing today. Having watched both era, it's just my opinion that the pre cap NFL was stronger and required more to win consistently. I'm just at the point now where I appreciate what both dynasties have done. But part of me wonders what a Joe (or Steve for that matter), Bill and Jerry would do with how the league has become so pass Heavy. Also, I'm very envious of the Pats being able to have Brady and Belichek for 17+ years. I would have loved to have Walsh for over a decade and a half with Joe.

Originally posted by Vegasodds101:

Absolutely correct

Absolutely right on with everything you said...great job. It's why I do think Joe had an advantage, he was the lucky one running it first ( along with him being all time great). Defenses took a while to get used to it. Defenses now have ways and plans to defend it much better than 30 years ago. The spread offense such a good system if it is run efficiently and is very hard to stop especiAlly if you have a running game. But as Brady has shown, you don't need a running game, just a pass catching running back to succeed if you are an elite QB.

Ok. Joe was lucky. All i need to read. How many handles does diaz have?

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Ok. Joe was lucky. All i need to read. How many handles does diaz have?

Yes Joe was extremely lucky to be a 49ers during that era. Not sure why that is a problem for you as it's not news, it's fact. Doesn't mean Joe isn't all time great. If Brady was drafted by any other team than the Patriots, he wouldn't have 5 SB's. It goes both ways, it's OK to admit Joe wasn't perfect and had help. Niners816 said he'd love to have seen Montana with Walsh and Rice in today's NFL, as would I. I would have also loved to see Brady with Walsh and Rice. The undisputed best receiver of all time and the consensus best offensive mind of all time. Belichick and Rice to go with Brady for 16 years would be great too.

Originally posted by elguapo:
No and please don't put words in my mouth. You assumed wrong like most of this thread your logic is flawed as well as your short sighted arguments. Montana is the goat for many reasons and Brady is 2. Michael Jordan has lost games but he is the goat. Montana is just a lot more clutch than Brady and played against way harder competition. Done

why is michael jordan the GOAT when bill russell won more rings? kareem also won the same amount of the ring and mvps and have much better stats? have you ever thought about that?

i too think MJ is the GOAT. why? because i've seen his dominance.

and just like MJ i've seen Brady's dominance. which IMO is much longer version of Montana's. and you can't just use the ring argument(which also favors brady 5>4).

in GOAT debate you look at EVERYTHING.

i look at these when i determine the GOAT

-rings
-SB performance
-playoff performance
-playoff wins
-regular season wins
-records held
-bulk statistics
-efficciency statistics
-eye test
-era/rules
-offensive cast
-how much team's defense helped the team
-what their circumstances were
-intangibles
-leadership
-overall impact of the game

all of these matters. obviously SB accomplishment is the most important. when you stack them up and compare brady comes out at the top all the time.