USA Today's All-Time Super Bowl Team: Two Wolverines, But No Brady
With Super Bowl 50 coming up tomorrow, USA Today has named its All-Time Super Bowl Team. We have two spots on the team: defensive back Ty Law and return specialist Desmond Howard. Excellent choices.
However, they opted for Joe Montana over Tom Brady at QB.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2016/02/06/super-bowl-golden-t…
February 6th, 2016 at 8:12 PM ^
I'd love to see what Brady would do with a receiver like Rice. Dude only had Moss for essentially 2 years and those were 2 of the best years of Moss's career (and he had arguably the best season ever by a WR in 2007).
February 6th, 2016 at 8:12 PM ^
Hard to argue with Joe Montana who went 4 for 4 and was just as clutch for the 49ers as Brady has been for the Pats. Then again Montana did have Jerry Rice all those years whereas Brady's had a mixed bag of midgets, has-beens and transients to throw to, and Gronk.
February 6th, 2016 at 8:24 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 6th, 2016 at 8:38 PM ^
February 6th, 2016 at 8:57 PM ^
February 6th, 2016 at 9:39 PM ^
It's the same reason Howard gets in, and I'm good with it.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 6th, 2016 at 11:46 PM ^
Montana had already won two Super Bowls before getting Jerry Rice, Brady had already won three before getting Moss or Gronk. Montana had the absence of the salary cap and a host of Hall-of-Famers around him, Brady had Belichick and Ernie Adams and all the power of that coaching staff. Not to mention Adam Vinatieri's golden foot.
Tl;dr - can't go wrong with either one of them.
February 7th, 2016 at 3:46 PM ^
February 7th, 2016 at 5:21 PM ^
Is 4-0 in super bowls better than 4-2?
I never really understood this logic.
February 7th, 2016 at 6:16 PM ^
4 wins, 0 L, 0 picks...and he only had Jerry Rice for the 3rd & 4th SB fyi.
Tommy for backup - and he wouldn't argue for 1 second either! Only wish there were more Wolverines on the all time team!
February 6th, 2016 at 8:21 PM ^
Montana won 2 Super Bowls before the 49ers drafted Rice.
Montana also never threw an interception in 4 Super Bowls as well.
February 6th, 2016 at 8:42 PM ^
My bad
February 6th, 2016 at 8:30 PM ^
February 6th, 2016 at 8:36 PM ^
February 6th, 2016 at 8:38 PM ^
Terry Bradshaw was also 4-0 in Super Bowls as well, and he wasn't mentioned. Now, he also had two HOF WR's, Franco Harris and the Steel Curtain around him as well.
February 6th, 2016 at 8:43 PM ^
February 6th, 2016 at 9:09 PM ^
February 6th, 2016 at 10:48 PM ^
Stallworth.
February 7th, 2016 at 10:22 AM ^
Are they hall of famers because of Terry Bradshaw? I know that most recievers can't catch a ball without someone putting it in there general direction. When a team has multiple hall of fame recievers might be the QB.
February 7th, 2016 at 11:10 AM ^
I think many, due to how great the Steelers were in that era, tend to question if certain individual players would have been as good on other teams. That is a valid question I guess, especially with such a significant number. But I honestly don't question the talent of any of them because I watched all of those that receive mention as possibly being the all-time best at their position.
I think only two, Mean Joe and the center are realistic candidates from that team for being the best to ever play their respective positions.
As to Swan, many forget he was generously listed at 6' but the man had a very special blend of talent. I recall many of the catches he made were accomplished on some of Terry's worst throws. I believe his vertical was near 40" and there is no doubt about his route running ability. He certainly understood the importance of and demonstrated on numerous occasions his ability to separate from the defender.
I have no problem in agreeing with the majority that Jerry was the greatest receiver to ever play in the league, but Swan has to be among the top 8 to 10 and that's pretty good company.
February 7th, 2016 at 1:50 PM ^
Bradshaw was surrounded with unbelievable talent. His stats are average at best. Don't forget Mike Webster. Bradshaw's career stats 51.9% completions and 212 tds vs 210 int with a QB rating of 70.9.
February 6th, 2016 at 8:42 PM ^
Gets hit 23 times with all his recievers playjng injured and is a missed xtra point from his 7th SB...WTF!
February 6th, 2016 at 8:43 PM ^
February 6th, 2016 at 8:46 PM ^
Correct. Stallworth went into the HOF in 2002.
February 6th, 2016 at 8:48 PM ^
Brady's the better QB (in part because he plays in a passing era), but Montana was incredible in the SB, and averaged almost 3 TD throws per game, compared to Brady's 2. I think Montana's got to get the nod for SB Qb of all time (so far). Bradshaw was from a different era and didn't have the stats.
February 6th, 2016 at 8:53 PM ^
February 6th, 2016 at 9:02 PM ^
February 6th, 2016 at 10:43 PM ^
Miami in Super Bowl XXIX and Denver in XXIV just weren't in the same league. Not to say Montana wasn't damn good, though, but I think the 49ers would have won with a lesser quarterback.
Of the two close Super Bowls Montana and the 49ers won (both against the Bengals), Montana played more of a game manager role in the first one. Many of the big plays in that game came from the defense, including a goal line stand. It was only in the second game against the Bengals that I think Montana was critical.
All of Brady's Super Bowls, on the other hand, were close. The Patriots could have easily lost five or even all six with an inferior quarterback.
February 7th, 2016 at 3:45 PM ^
I would bet that Brady would give Montana the nod if he could not pick himself. I also believe Montana would give Brady the nod if he could not pick himself. They would probably vote the same way even if they could choose themselves. I know Brady would.
February 7th, 2016 at 4:04 PM ^
I would bet that Brady would give Montana the nod if he could not pick himself. I also believe Montana would give Brady the nod if he could not pick himself. They would probably vote the same way even if they could choose themselves. I know Brady would.
February 6th, 2016 at 9:14 PM ^
is still playing. He wants #5, #6 to make sure there is some statistical variance between him and the next guy 8-)
February 7th, 2016 at 8:20 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 6th, 2016 at 9:20 PM ^
February 6th, 2016 at 9:52 PM ^
February 6th, 2016 at 10:43 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 6th, 2016 at 11:56 PM ^
February 7th, 2016 at 7:05 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 7th, 2016 at 10:39 AM ^
but they placed a lot of emphasis on being "clutch" when it mattered most. I do know he - Tom - could not have done any thing more in the loss to the Giants. On the Pats final possession he marched them down the field to give them the lead with very little time left. Then, of course, Manning's pass to Mario was his biggest play of the day, but Tom did what he was supposed to. And that other loss included a rather fortuitous and probably among the top 5 "craziest" catches I have ever seen.
But have no problem with Joe. He was, as the author pointed out one of the coolest performers at the biggest moments. And I'll always be thankful to him for throwing the pass to Clark to quiet all the Dallas fans that were almost as obnoxious as MSU fans.
Actually enjoyed reading the piece.Brought back a lot of memories. Even with the number of Steelers listed, they could have, justifiably imo, added a couple more. As great as Lambert was, his teammate and fellow linebacker, Jack Hamm, was, in the opinion of his peers, the best linebacker of that specific time frame. I made more money off that team than any other I've ever bet on in the Super Bowl. Granted they were possibly the greatest team ever assembled, but I think the reason I was able to get so much action is because their opponent was the Cowboys and "America's Team" had a lot of fans in Muskegon.
I was happy with the inclusion of Csonka as well. There can be no argument as to his running style. But, Damn, he was good at it. Quite possibly the angriest running back I have ever seen.
February 6th, 2016 at 9:25 PM ^
February 6th, 2016 at 10:07 PM ^
February 6th, 2016 at 11:23 PM ^
I love Brady, but Montana is still the GOAT. He played againt better teams. The NFL of this era is waterdown. The 80's--particularly the NFC--had Parcells Giants, Gibbs Redskins, the Bears, and the Niners. The AFC wasn't quite as strong, but the Raiders were still an elite franchise,the Broncos were very good, and at the end the Bills began their rise.
Anyways, this is like compariing Bernini to Michelangelo in terms of sculpture. You can't go wrong with either one.
February 7th, 2016 at 7:42 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 7th, 2016 at 4:25 PM ^
The thing I think where he misses is Tom Brady's team being one of them.
February 7th, 2016 at 10:50 AM ^
February 7th, 2016 at 5:03 PM ^
are far more equal today than they were in Montana days. Making it to the SB is half of the battle today. It was the battle in Montana days. Montana was 4 for 4 because his opposition had no chance from the get go. Brady getting to 6 SBs alone is better than winning 4 back in Montana days.