The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
23 Points

Joe Montana is way better than Tom Brady.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2013 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 959 times Debate No: 41412
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)




Let's see. Joe Montana is better.
1. He has won 4 super bowls! Brady only won 3.
2. He has 3 MVPS! Brady has only 2!
3. He has went to 4 super bowls. Won all of them. Brady has went to 5 or 6. Won 3.
4. Even though Tom Brady has a better win percentage, Joe has a better legacy score in Madden 25.

4 reasons why he is better.
Debate Round No. 1


Name 4 reasons how he is better.
I can.

1. Joe has more Super Bowls
2. He has more MVPs
3. Better legacy score.
4. He has a better Super Bowl win percetage. His: 1.000 Tom Brady:.6000


So lets take a look at a few factors in this debate

The resolution is that

" Joe Montana is way better than Tom Brady "

Logic shows us that the resolution is that Joe Montana is not as good as Tom Brady but better than him, and not just simply better but far better. So if I can show that Tom Brady is better than Joe Montana, or even just as good of a QB as Joe Montana the resolution is negated. My adversary must just not show that Joe is better, but far better than Brady.

Let us compare a few stats to start with.

Lets compare stat the stats for their first 12 seasons.


Pass Yards : 39,979
TD- INT : 300-115
Completions : 3,397
Comp Pct : 63.8
W-L : 124 - 35


Pass Yards : 34,998
TD-INT : 242 - 123
Completions : 2,914
Comp Pct : 63.6
W-L : 100-39

Okay so right off the start we can see a few differences. Remember this is the same number of seasons which happens to be their first 12 in this comparison. Notice that Brady has 20 more games than Montana and has 5 few losses. Brady already has a significantly better win loss ratio. He has a .2 higher completion. This is HUGE and i do mean HUGE. When you are comparing completion you must look at the type of era you are playing in. When Montana was playing the NFL was not such a pocket driven league. Brady is playing in a pocket driven, pass oriented NFL. It is much harder to pass in this than old school NFL. Tight ends and safeties are bread for stopping passes now days. Back when Montana was playing, the game focused much more on running. Also notice the total number of completions and the completion to interception ratio. Brady did better in all of these.

Note that Brady has passed Montana in total playoff wins as well. [2]

Addressing Superbowl wins.

Remember this is a career comparison and Brady is not done yet. But just look at who Montana had on his team. His back up QB by himself was a hall of famer in hiding. Mixed in with Rice you have a recipe for one of the best teams in NFL history. Brady has almost tied him in Superbowl appearances and wins, with just a good and even mediocre team at times.


When you are addressing an argument like this, it is very difficult to see whom is actually better. Brady just in pure stats alone destroys Montana. Surpassing him almost entirely in completion, completion percentage, and pass to interception ratios. As I have shown the win loss is also in Bradys favor. [3][4]

In Closing

I do think Brady is by far better than Montana, nor do I think I can claim he is even better than Montana at this point. What I do think I can claim is that he is on par with Montana as a quarterback and on his way to uprooting the legacy Montana left behind. When we are comparing careers when Brady retires, he will have surpassed Montana and even at this present point in time is on even ground with him.

Therefore the most logical conclusion is to assume. Montana is not "way better" than tom Brady, bust just as good as Brady.

Debate Round No. 2


Argument #1:

My oppenent here is missing some details.

Read this article, please:

Most of the statistical arguments made in favor of Tom Brady are often washed-away in one simple phrase: "Montana played in a different era, man. There was none of that can't-hit-the-QB garbage back in the '80s. Montana's better because of what he had to deal with."

Fine, then. Let's ignore for a second that trying to argue that point is like saying Flava Flav is a better artist than Jay-Z because producing equipment in the '80s was worse. I suppose it's fair that you only compare a player to his peers.

So let's do exactly that. To use the words of our Dear Chief Analyst Keith Goldner, "There is no Holy Grail of statistics that can determine who's better". But rather than use the raw data, as most do, the most effective way to determine a player's value to his team is to devise how much better a player was than the league average.'s adjusted-net-yards-per-attempt (ANY/A+) statistic is an easy way to do just that.

For ANY/A+, you first determine a player's net passing yards per attempt. For example, in Tom Brady's Super Bowl-winning 2004 season, that number is 7.06. That number is then adjusted for the relative strength of the passing game in a particular season. Then, the stat geeks determine what the average ANY/A would be for all QBs with at least 14 pass attempts per game. They then determine how many standard deviations an individual player's season is away from the mean, multiply that number by 15, then add 100 to it to make it look pretty.

According to Pro-Football-Reference, an average season is exactly 100 in any given year. A typical league-leading season is in the high 120's or low 130's. The best seasons are in the 140's.

Joe Montana 110 119 117 122 138 119 113 127 115 141 117 119 109

Tom Brady 102 105 107 118 116 108 142 120 128 132 120

If there's one thing to be said about both Brady and Montana, it's that they were never below-average. Instead, both players were above the 100-point mark for every season of each one's career. To break these numbers down a bit further:

Seasons at 110 ANY/A+: Montana 12 (92%), Brady 7 (64%)
Seasons at 120 ANY/A+: Montana 4 (31%), Brady 5 (45%)
Seasons at 130 ANY/A+: Montana 2 (15%), Brady 2 (18%)

All of this is to say that if Joe Montana's Ke$ha, with some legitimate hits that you couldn't get away from but nothing too groundbreaking, then Tom Brady's Carly Rae Jepsen, with some super-mega-ultra songs (see, now Call Me Maybe's stuck in your head) but the low points are much lower.

A lot of this disparity may be due to the type of system that each played in. Under Bill Walsh's West Coast style, Montana completed more short, accurate passes, which caused him to be more consistent. Brady, meanwhile, has been categorized by a need to go down the field early and often, especially in recent years with Randy Moss, Wes Welker, and Rob Gronkowski in the fold.

ANY/A+ isn't the only stat that has this type of distribution. Adjusted interception percentage (INT%+), which is calculated the same way with respect to the league average, sees Joe Montana with fewer seasons below 110 (one vs. Brady's four), but Brady's the one with three seasons (2007, 2010, 2012) that are better or equal to Montana's best (1981). And it's the same with TD%+, where Montana has more seasons above 115 (five to four), but Brady has more seasons above 120 (four to three). Adjusted sack percentage? Well, you know where I'm going with this. Montana has more seasons under 100 sack%+ (two to one) but also more seasons above 120 sack%+ (again, two to one).

Our Net Expected Points figure, which we usually use for determining a player's efficiency, only goes back to the start of the 2000 season. In the time since, Brady has put forth three of the top 10 most efficient NFL seasons, in 2007, 2011, and 2012. But while Montana's efficiency cannot be clearly quantified, his 1984, 1987, and 1989 seasons would all likely be in the discussion as well.

Argument #2: This proves Joe Montana is better overall. Let's look at the playoff picture shall we?

In the past, this was the end-all argument for Joe Montana against anybody. But here, it can just as easily apply to Tom Brady. He does have more playoff wins, a better playoff winning percentage, and more game-winning drives, after all.

But as with the regular-season statistics, this one's as close as can be. Check out the breakdown of each's playoff numbers. And as a note, the statistics about playoff comebacks and game-winning drives also comes from

Playoff Record 16-7 17-6
Playoff Win % .696 .739
Super Bowl Record 4-0 3-2
Playoff One-And-Dones 4 2
Playoff Comebacks 5 3
Playoff Game-Winning Drives 5 6
Playoff Passer Rating 110+ 6 6
Playoff Passer Rating 130+ 3 3

The sample size is too small for legitimate ANY/A+ numbers, or else I'm sure those would be the same too. Neither one has a distinct advantage when it comes to the playoffs. In fact, I'm prepared to call this one a draw. No, Donovan McNabb, you can't tie this time; you still lose.

Argument #3: Woah, woah. That's only one site! They could just be a fan of Montana! Nope, look at this:

Super Bowl stats:

Pass yds 1,277 1,142
Comp-Att 127-197 83-122
TD-Int 9-1 11-0
W-L 3-2 4-0

Comparing their stats side-by-side, it looks clear that Brady has the upper hand. But by taking a deeper look at how they compared to their peers in their own eras, Montana fares better. Brady can’t compare to Montana’s perfect 4-0 Super Bowl record and 11-0 touchdown-to-interception ratio. If Super Bowls are your ultimate measuring stick, Montana is your guy.

Better win percentage in the Superbowl? AND better completion percentage? Wow!

Montana completion percentage in the Super Bowl:

86.9% completed


64.4% completed

Wow, big difference?

Hmm, Montana is starting to look "way" better. Not to mention that ESPN even said he was the better QB. Con's turn.


Note my adversary just went copy paste mode on his last argument and didn't cite sources either.

The Years in Which they played

This is a key factor as I mentioned earlier in comparing stats. Montana was playing in a rushing NFL league, Brady is playing in a pass driven league. While Brady will get more chances to throw the ball, the defense in the current NFL is designed to shut down pass offense. Tight ends are getting better and better as they years go along. While Montana was playing in a league where there was a lot more running, similar to a college play style. Now note stats from most of their career seasons. Almost fluently and even as I have shown in the last round, Brady finished with a higher pass completion ratio than Montana. A .20 higher to be exact. This is even in spite of the fact how much more Brady has thrown that Montana. Literally speaking Brady has thrown more passes than Montana, and completed more in the process. This simply burns down to Brady is more accurate.

Now compare if you took the best years of Montana and put him in the NFL now. He would not do as well as Brady is doing. We can logically assume this when we compare the stats in his era vs Brady's in this current era. However if we took Brady and stuck him in the era of Montana, Brady would light up the field.

Brady has beaten Montana all across the stat board consistently, and this is in the current era of the NFL. If you were to pull him out and put him in a run driven league, Brady by himself would force the league into a pass defense NFL by himself. He has the potential to single handily change the style of the NFL.

Rebuttal Comparing Stats

I really laughed at the figures my adversary presented in his last round. When he was posting end game statistics notice a few things.

(1) the only argument someone could make for Montana is that he has more Superbowl wins and less losses. Again I addressed this with the potential his team had the years he was winning. This stat is primiarly determined by the team itself. Any win loss plays a factor in the team, but look at pass completion and other single player statsitics and Brady is winning out.

(2) Also notice that Brady has a higher win ratio, higher number of winning drives, and has tied him in passer rating by those stats. If you were to break down single indivial stats as well we can see that

(a) Brady has a higher win ratio
(b) Brady has more wins and less losses with more games played
(c) Brady has a higher pass completion
(d) Brady has a higher percentage of wins in the Playoffs
(e) Brady's Qb rating is even or higher than Montana in most seasons
(f) Brady has more yards per season
(d) Brady has a higher pass to completion rate
(f) Brady has more TD passes.

ALMOST every single individual QB stat Brady is winning on the boards.

Even ESPN acknowledges this on multiple accounts

"Comparing their stats side-by-side, it looks clear that Brady has the upper hand" [3]

The article then goes on to say that Joe Montana shines in super bowls and post games. This is the truth but when we line them up side by side and compare stats and numbers, We have to acknowledge that Brady has put out better stats.

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 2 years ago
Lol semantics on this one are way too easy
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I generally allow the BOP to be argued out in the debate. If no such argument occurs I typically think of "Pro" positions and instigators having the burden. In this case I think the resolution construction "way better" is fatal to Gabe1e. Not only is there a lack of any bright line analysis on what that means, but I think most of Pro's arguments in R3 suggest that Montana is simply better. I also give con the citation points in this instance because Pro failed to cite R3.
Vote Placed by 19debater19 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Copie and paste. Con win.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: A few reasons that CON won this debate. First off, PRO copied and pasted some things, giving con the better conduct. Con, however, forgot a few periods and made some grammar mistakes, so pro gets that part. On the arguments, pro was only able to prove Montana was slightly better, not way better. Con made equal arguments. If the title was just "better," pro would've won this part. And lastly, con was the only one that used any sources, making him the winner.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro shot himself in the foot by making the debate about "way" better. Pro was only able to show that Montana was slightly better than Brady. Both sides accidentally made arguments against themselves. Pro's entire R3 (which was not sourced, costing him the source points) showed that the two were mostly equal with Montana only being slightly better (thus failing to meet his BOP). Con, claimed that because we are in a passing league, that it is harder for passers. That is outrageously false and when Con stated that TEs are used on defense when he said "Tight ends and safeties are bread for stopping passes now days." But since the BOP was on Pro, the arguments fall to Con.