Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
and the posts in here just keep getting worse and worse. Now a lot of people were saying Kobe was better than MJ. LMAO. At least we know the odds now of going 4-4 in SBs. That is critical.

Since its an achievement of Joe's, no surprise you crap on it "Niner" John.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
and the posts in here just keep getting worse and worse. Now a lot of people were saying Kobe was better than MJ. LMAO. At least we know the odds now of going 4-4 in SBs. That is critical.

Since its an achievement of Joe's, no surprise you crap on it "Niner" John.

You dont have very good recall I guess. I have stated in here on several occasions that I saw every single game Montana ever played sitting in my season tickets . I have also said that he is my favorite player ever. The big difference between me and many others in here is that I can be objective and not a homer. I dont say ridiculous things like Montana had better eye control than Brady. LOL. That might be my favorite. Or that Brady could never have lasted in Joe's era. Another silly statement that one could never prove anyway.

People in this WZ, many of whom never saw Joe even play, are so quick to diminish Bradys accomplishments and ignore some of Montana's failures. I believe that both have been amazing QBs with incredible records. The only thing that Joe really has the edge in terms of stats is his SB performance. In 3 of his 4 SBS he really was superb. However, a career should not judged simply on SB wins.

The real answer is that it is impossible to compare ERAs and say a QB today is the GOAT over a guy that played 30 years ago. Joe said this himself and that is what I will continue to go with.

Spare me the BS you threw out in your last line. I am no less of a Niner fan than you simply because I acknowledge that Brady is at least on an equal level as GOAT.

Originally posted by LVJay:

Hey Guapo, you're caught up in the circle jerk now too

A lot of points made about Brady's greatness, but barely any to zero props for Montana's accomplishments... but ya know, gotta leave those out to make Tommy look Godlike in comparison.

I know right. I just wish people would admit the obvious. They can feel Brady is up there with Montana but they can't argue one of the most important things a quarterback has which is clutch. Montana definitely had that over Tom Brady. And Montana did it in way less time than Brady against Way better competition. It's too obvious. But ignorance is bliss

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:

You get trolled too easily I guess, or watch too much Skip Bayless, I can see him being your idol lol.

Good so you're admitting you're a troll. We all knew that already. Keep on trolling....like a boss hahaha

Be cool guys. Like Joe.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Obviously you are very well acquainted with Brady. probably yoiu are less acquainted with Joe. You watch a lot of tape, but that's not the same as being there and watching the regular season games, the playoffs whenever you can, every season, win or lose the super bowl.

Some posters on this thread have watched all of Joe's career, all of Brady's career, and prefer Brady. But, others prefer Joe. I'm one of those and I think that if you had the opportunity to watch as much of Joe as the older folks, you would be less inclined to favor Brady.

The natural trend in the NFL is live in the now and make superlative headlines in the now. I think beating the drums for Brady is a part of that phenomenon. It's not objective, but it is profitable, and that's what the NFL is about.

i'm a student of the game. i like watching other great players. hawks never had a great QB when i was groing up. so i watched and idolized many great players including montana, elway, and marino. i never had a dog in a fight.

i just love how QBs have evolved over the years. my mind is blown whenever i watch peyton manning and tom brady orchestrating the offense.

and brady drum's been beating for 16+ years. brady is likely to become the 1st player to be all decade team twice. in 00's and 10's. it's the longest dominance i've witnessed. what pats are doing is what niners did from 80's to 90's but they did it better. it's no knock on the niners. but IMO pats are the greatest dynasty ever because of the salary cap. history will remember brady/BB as the GOAT combo.

Originally posted by natediaz:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Obviously you are very well acquainted with Brady. probably yoiu are less acquainted with Joe. You watch a lot of tape, but that's not the same as being there and watching the regular season games, the playoffs whenever you can, every season, win or lose the super bowl.

Some posters on this thread have watched all of Joe's career, all of Brady's career, and prefer Brady. But, others prefer Joe. I'm one of those and I think that if you had the opportunity to watch as much of Joe as the older folks, you would be less inclined to favor Brady.

The natural trend in the NFL is live in the now and make superlative headlines in the now. I think beating the drums for Brady is a part of that phenomenon. It's not objective, but it is profitable, and that's what the NFL is about.

i'm a student of the game. i like watching other great players. hawks never had a great QB when i was groing up. so i watched and idolized many great players including montana, elway, and marino. i never had a dog in a fight.

i just love how QBs have evolved over the years. my mind is blown whenever i watch peyton manning and tom brady orchestrating the offense.

and brady drum's been beating for 16+ years. brady is likely to become the 1st player to be all decade team twice. in 00's and 10's. it's the longest dominance i've witnessed. what pats are doing is what niners did from 80's to 90's but they did it better. it's no knock on the niners. but IMO pats are the greatest dynasty ever because of the salary cap. history will remember brady/BB as the GOAT combo.

A student of the game or perhaps a student of playing mind games

No knock? L0L!! Decade for decade (no bias) Niners were better. It took Patriots 13 years to get 4 SB wins (49ers took only 8) and got their 5th with a different QB / Coach in 13 years... Patriots just got their 5th in 15 years with the same coach / system / QB. What took so long? The continuity was there?

AND YES it is all about SB victories because they "play to win the game" they win games to get to the SB and ultimately to win. The Patriots have two legends in BB and Brady, but let's not forget, they're taking almost 20 years to do what 49ers accomplished in less time (a lot less time).

If you're such a "student of the game," then maybe you can make an argument on how both team's fared against the competition they faced to get to the SB and the competition they faced in the SB. I know that the 49ers had to battle some badass defenses just to get there (85 Bears, Giants, Cowboys......). I'm guessing the 49ers faced better / tougher foes just to get there. Patriots division was mostly crap all through their dominance. I don't believe the NFC West was as bad in Walsh / Montana or Seifert / Young days (I could be wrong).

It's unfortunate that Walsh and Montana didn't have 16/17 plus years together like BB and Brady....

Yourr a student of the game -- meaning you never saw joe play. Just tape. Right?

Originally posted by LVJay:
A student of the game or perhaps a student of playing mind games

No knock? L0L!! Decade for decade (no bias) Niners were better. It took Patriots 13 years to get 4 SB wins (49ers took only 8) and got their 5th with a different QB / Coach in 13 years... Patriots just got their 5th in 15 years with the same coach / system / QB. What took so long? The continuity was there?

AND YES it is all about SB victories because they "play to win the game" they win games to get to the SB and ultimately to win. The Patriots have two legends in BB and Brady, but let's not forget, they're taking almost 20 years to do what 49ers accomplished in less time (a lot less time).

If you're such a "student of the game," then maybe you can make an argument on how both team's fared against the competition they faced to get to the SB and the competition they faced in the SB. I know that the 49ers had to battle some badass defenses just to get there (85 Bears, Giants, Cowboys......). I'm guessing the 49ers faced better / tougher foes just to get there. Patriots division was mostly crap all through their dominance. I don't believe the NFC West was as bad in Walsh / Montana or Seifert / Young days (I could be wrong).

It's unfortunate that Walsh and Montana didn't have 16/17 plus years together like BB and Brady....

Niner's run was very impressive. but Pats surpass virtually every categories and they are doing it in a non salary cap era. i have no homer glasses on, so i can look at this very objectively.

this was before pats 5th SB win. now with 5th SB and 3 more playoff wins later, pats look like a clear winner. i honestly don't think it's all that close if you really factor in the salary cap argument.



again, no offense to the niners. you guys were great. 84 and 89 teams are the best i've seen. but this brady/BB led pats are something else if you objectively look at what they've accomplished.

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
You dont have very good recall I guess. I have stated in here on several occasions that I saw every single game Montana ever played sitting in my season tickets . I have also said that he is my favorite player ever. The big difference between me and many others in here is that I can be objective and not a homer. I dont say ridiculous things like Montana had better eye control than Brady. LOL. That might be my favorite. Or that Brady could never have lasted in Joe's era. Another silly statement that one could never prove anyway.

People in this WZ, many of whom never saw Joe even play, are so quick to diminish Bradys accomplishments and ignore some of Montana's failures. I believe that both have been amazing QBs with incredible records. The only thing that Joe really has the edge in terms of stats is his SB performance. In 3 of his 4 SBS he really was superb. However, a career should not judged simply on SB wins.

The real answer is that it is impossible to compare ERAs and say a QB today is the GOAT over a guy that played 30 years ago. Joe said this himself and that is what I will continue to go with.

Spare me the BS you threw out in your last line. I am no less of a Niner fan than you simply because I acknowledge that Brady is at least on an equal level as GOAT.

Joe did the little things to be successful in the pocket. Brady, not so much. That's what was meant no matter how badly that was phrased. But thanks for focusing on that and taking it out of context.

I am hardly a homer, since everyone hates me on this board because i call out the front office regularly for BAD DECISIONS that hurt the Niners.

I called out Baalke as a compromised GM while every other mega poster here was propogandizing his every decision.

I don't need to be ahomer to say that there are only three qbs with a body of work and the skillset to be considered hyper elite in the last forty years.

Brady is not on that list. Joe is. Plain and simple. How can you not see it? It's bizarre really.

The only way I can explain it is that you never saw Joe play. But you say you saw every game. So I don't know what to say.

What Brady is doing is expanding the debate regarding skill set -- should we add durability to the list of valued qb skills?

His productivity at his age is unprecedented and that is where things get complicated. I haven't decided yet.

By the way can you say something nice about Joe? Other than he's second best to Brady?

Notice how I don't put down Brady, just make sure Joe's essential qualities are apppreciated.

Originally posted by natediaz:

Originally posted by LVJay:

A student of the game or perhaps a student of playing mind games

No knock? L0L!! Decade for decade (no bias) Niners were better. It took Patriots 13 years to get 4 SB wins (49ers took only 8) and got their 5th with a different QB / Coach in 13 years... Patriots just got their 5th in 15 years with the same coach / system / QB. What took so long? The continuity was there?

AND YES it is all about SB victories because they "play to win the game" they win games to get to the SB and ultimately to win. The Patriots have two legends in BB and Brady, but let's not forget, they're taking almost 20 years to do what 49ers accomplished in less time (a lot less time).

If you're such a "student of the game," then maybe you can make an argument on how both team's fared against the competition they faced to get to the SB and the competition they faced in the SB. I know that the 49ers had to battle some badass defenses just to get there (85 Bears, Giants, Cowboys......). I'm guessing the 49ers faced better / tougher foes just to get there. Patriots division was mostly crap all through their dominance. I don't believe the NFC West was as bad in Walsh / Montana or Seifert / Young days (I could be wrong).

It's unfortunate that Walsh and Montana didn't have 16/17 plus years together like BB and Brady....

Niner's run was very impressive. but Pats surpass virtually every categories and they are doing it in a non salary cap era. i have no homer glasses on, so i can look at this very objectively.

this was before pats 5th SB win. now with 5th SB and 3 more playoff wins later, pats look like a clear winner. i honestly don't think it's all that close if you really factor in the salary cap argument.



again, no offense to the niners. you guys were great. 84 and 89 teams are the best i've seen. but this brady/BB led pats are something else if you objectively look at what they've accomplished.

Wtf is ur point here? You went from Brady > Montana to Manning > Montana now Pats > 49ers. Who gives a rat's ass and the Steelers (lolz) have 6.

Gtfo of here Mr. 1 and 2. Don't get mad at us because your team could have been 3-0 in the SB.

How many rings does Joe have if he were able to stay healthy? 94 easily. Throw in 1 more between 90-94 and he likely has 6. The softer league rules has put some years on Brady's career so while I think it's neck and neck Joe just was just a bit more dominant. Brady's claim is a longer career.

If NE won in 07 there would be no debate though. 6 rings, 1 of 2 undefeated years, a back to back. So close yet so far away. Tom's career isn't over yet and if they repeat next year his argument for GOAT increases.

Originally posted by LVJay:

A student of the game or perhaps a student of playing mind games

No knock? L0L!! Decade for decade (no bias) Niners were better. It took Patriots 13 years to get 4 SB wins (49ers took only 8) and got their 5th with a different QB / Coach in 13 years... Patriots just got their 5th in 15 years with the same coach / system / QB. What took so long? The continuity was there?

AND YES it is all about SB victories because they "play to win the game" they win games to get to the SB and ultimately to win. The Patriots have two legends in BB and Brady, but let's not forget, they're taking almost 20 years to do what 49ers accomplished in less time (a lot less time).

If you're such a "student of the game," then maybe you can make an argument on how both team's fared against the competition they faced to get to the SB and the competition they faced in the SB. I know that the 49ers had to battle some badass defenses just to get there (85 Bears, Giants, Cowboys......). I'm guessing the 49ers faced better / tougher foes just to get there. Patriots division was mostly crap all through their dominance. I don't believe the NFC West was as bad in Walsh / Montana or Seifert / Young days (I could be wrong).

It's unfortunate that Walsh and Montana didn't have 16/17 plus years together like BB and Brady....

Such A waste to argue against against your points it's almost unbelievable. I've made some of the same but people choose to ignore them. Yet they are probably the most telling. Brady lost 2 super bowls and it took them longer to win 4. It's pretty f**king simple. Dam. Montana is basically Michael Jordan.

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by LVJay:
A student of the game or perhaps a student of playing mind games

No knock? L0L!! Decade for decade (no bias) Niners were better. It took Patriots 13 years to get 4 SB wins (49ers took only 8) and got their 5th with a different QB / Coach in 13 years... Patriots just got their 5th in 15 years with the same coach / system / QB. What took so long? The continuity was there?

AND YES it is all about SB victories because they "play to win the game" they win games to get to the SB and ultimately to win. The Patriots have two legends in BB and Brady, but let's not forget, they're taking almost 20 years to do what 49ers accomplished in less time (a lot less time).

If you're such a "student of the game," then maybe you can make an argument on how both team's fared against the competition they faced to get to the SB and the competition they faced in the SB. I know that the 49ers had to battle some badass defenses just to get there (85 Bears, Giants, Cowboys......). I'm guessing the 49ers faced better / tougher foes just to get there. Patriots division was mostly crap all through their dominance. I don't believe the NFC West was as bad in Walsh / Montana or Seifert / Young days (I could be wrong).

It's unfortunate that Walsh and Montana didn't have 16/17 plus years together like BB and Brady....

Such A waste to argue against against your points it's almost unbelievable. I've made some of the same but people choose to ignore them. Yet they are probably the most telling. Brady lost 2 super bowls and it took them longer to win 4. It's pretty f**king simple. Dam. Montana is basically Michael Jordan.

If you count total games played in winning the 4th superbowl, then Joe dominates.

What about Terry Bradshaw? He played for 14 seasons with Pittsburgh, won four Super Bowl titles in a six-year period (1974, 1975, 1978, and 1979), becoming the first quarterback to win three and four Super Bowls, and led the Steelers to eight AFC Central championships.