Curious about 49er fans reasoning on why Montana was better. I personally would choose Montana over Brady as the best Ive seen. SB wins, SB MVP's, pro-bowls, play off wins, etc are all numbers they share closely to each other, so I can understand the argument either way.
I hear a lot of people point out that Montana had the benefit of Jerry Rice as his primary WR compared to the also rans that Brady had. In defense of that, I do point out that in the pre-free agency frenzy, that Montana had to face stacked Giants, Bears, and Redskins defenses year after year after year. Those units had just as much continuity as the 49er offense did, and posed a great challenge of cohesiveness that the 49ers needed to overcome to be the team of the decade.
Montana also faced NFL rules that favored the defense in the passing game, and offered far less QB protection. Montana also excelled in KC leading the Chiefs to a 13-3(?) record in 93, while reaching the AFC CCG. In 94, he out dueled the likes of Elway and Young in victories en route to another playoff berth. I feel that stands to reason he could have been great nearly anywhere in the NFL. We don't have that insight into what Brady would do elsewhere, and can only assume he would excell at a different location. Brady also has zero SB rings, since the Patriots defense has taken a step back in recent years.
Maybe its counterintuitive to add this, but there's no denying the 49ers were the team of the decade in the 80's. No denying at all. However lending itself to the kind of competition that the NFC had at that time, Bill Parcells Giants managed to go 3-0 against Montana in the playoffs. If not for the Giants...then or now vs Brady, it could have perhaps been more easy to look differently at either Brady or Montana as they could have gotten more SB rings to seperate themselves in this debate.