GOAT. Montana or Brady?

The Montana/Brady debate has been going on for a decade, and will probably continue for years and years to come. Many people, especially Patriots fans, think that Brady getting ring #4 sealed his spot as the greatest quarterback of all time. I'm not disagreeing with that, but I'm not agreeing either. Anytime you compare two players there's a lot to look at, especially when those players played during different times, in much different leagues. I mean, the NFL today isn't the same now as it was when Joe Montana was tearing it up, shredding defenses Sunday after Sunday. 

• Of course, Montana played in the 80's when the league was much rougher. Brady however, has dominated the NFL during the free agency era, where rosters are constantly changing every off season. Just give Brady someone to throw to, and I'd almost guarantee he gets the job done. In short, Brady has done more with less. 

For most of Brady's career, he's had a bunch of no names to throw to, with the exception of Moss and a few players of recent seasons (Gronk & Welker{but he was a no name until he played with Brady}). Of course, the Patriots have kind of done that to themselves (or to Brady, really). Everyone knows New England doesn't spend big money on many players. And Belichick has a ridiculously good way of knowing when a player is a season or two away from being out of his prime. When he notices, he gets rid of them, or doesn't make much of an effort to keep them. Much like what happened with Welker (of course there was more to that situation). For the most part, Brady has had to do it with nobodies. It's not often that Brady has a star studded supporting cast. 

• Montana had Rice, the greatest receiver to ever play the game. Brady has had no one who compares. Randy Moss is the only one who *might* come close, but Brady never even won a Super Bowl with Moss. He won with guys like Deion Branch, Troy Brown, Jermaine Wiggins...Montana had a better receiving corp and was even surrounded by a better running game. Think Roger Craig. 

Many make the argument that Montana is better simply because he never lost a Super Bowl. He went to four, won all four, and the rest is history. Brady's been to six, won four (tied with the Great #16), and played against top ranked defenses each time. Sure Montana never lost a Super Bowl, but he never even had the chance to win five, let alone six. 

• If we want to go by stats, Brady has the edge. If we want to go by wins alone, Brady has the edge. TB12 has a better win percentage, more wins in both the regular season and postseason, and his touchdown to interception ratio tops Montana. Brady's been to 6 Super Bowls in 14 years; Montana went to 4 Super Bowls in 17 years. In my opinion, this alone speaks volumes. 
• "Brady won because of his defenses." Montana had pretty good defenses, too. 

Right now, it's still too hard for me to say who (I think) is the greatest quarterback of all time, hands down. Brady and Montana are both insane competitors and understood the game better than anyone. If Brady wins one more, which I sincerely hope he does, that ends the debate, in my opinion. Best post season quarterback of all time? Brady, absolutely. Just in general? Still up for debate, but after Brady won his 4th, against a defense that will be talked about for ages, it sure does make his case a little bit stronger. 

As always, go Pats. 

And go Brady.