Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

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.

What is "bizarre really" is that you would have a list of 3 elite QBs in the last 40 years that doesnt include Brady. I guess the rest of the entire football universe is wrong and you are the expert in QB rankings. So who besides Montana would be on your elite list? Does a QB have to be a mobile QB to qualify on your list? Maybe HYPER ELITE is different from elite.

In my opinion, there are more than 3 QBs in the last 40 years that were elite and you can be elite being a pocket passer.

Originally posted by LVJay:
Good points, and finally, someone who isn't going to circle jerk me around L0L...

TBH, I'm not really sure how all this came about and/or what his "Legacy" truly means to some in here, but.......

I can see the greatness in both QBs and realize that Brady has accomplished more (he has been in the league longer than Joe as well).

I can only imagine what Walsh / Montana would have accomplished had they stuck together as long as BB / Brady or what Joe could've done if he was fortunate enough to stay in the game as long as Brady (too bad he was into cocaine and wasn't as healthy / durable).

About him being in 7 SBs... I can't say that he would've lost any of those because I can only go by his record / ability in the proof of his game in the 4 he won. He never threw an INT, he won them all in regulation and he never choked. Why would I imagine him losing if he were to play 3 more?

"Are we going to pretend that Joe never lost a playoff game?" ... Whoever is pretending (it was never me) is in denial. Also, anyone pretending that Brady didn't have his fare share of losing in the playoffs is also in denial.

That's fair but on the flip side you can say what would've happened if Joe and Walsh had to play in a salary cap era?

And for the track record what if this conversation was after the 2004 season? Brady would've never lost a playoff game and would've been 3-0 in SBs. Eventually things catch up to everyone. I agree as i mentioned above Joe's SB performances were off the charts amazing but he did throw picks, he did "choke" in playoff games before the SB.

There are people in this thread still indicating that 5-2 is worse than 4-0 because it's not a perfect record. That's crazy. That's people pretending Joe never lost a playoff game because praising his perfection in the SB is conveniently forgetting that those other times he didn't make it to the SB by losing earlier.

And as for Brady choking in the SB the two loses to the Giants were due to a miracle play and another crazy catch which wouldn't have even been possible if Wes Welker catches the pass thrown to him in the 4th quarter.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
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.

Lol are you kidding me with this?

Brady doesn't do the little things in the pocket? Brady has some of the best pocket presence in the game and that's for being an immobile statue in some ways. Hell this year at senior citizen age he was arguably better than ever.

And durability is absolutely a skillset. Brady works very hard at keeping himself in shape and making sure he can take hits without getting injured. Have you seen the guys diet?

I'll call that bluff. What are the little things he does in the pocket to be successful, I must be kidding you.Go ahead I'm all ears.

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
What is "bizarre really" is that you would have a list of 3 elite QBs in the last 40 years that doesnt include Brady. I guess the rest of the entire football universe is wrong and you are the expert in QB rankings. So who besides Montana would be on your elite list? Does a QB have to be a mobile QB to qualify on your list? Maybe HYPER ELITE is different from elite.

In my opinion, there are more than 3 QBs in the last 40 years that were elite and you can be elite being a pocket passer.

Yes, I think so.

I've said it many times, Staubach, Montana, Rodgers since the Rozelle era.

That's it.

No Peyton, no wilson, no roethlesburger, no elway, no Aikman or Zorn or farve or warner or .....Young. Sorry about that but that's how I see it.

And yes, hyper elite is different from elite

Originally posted by Joecool:

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.

Ok, so this is all about the steel curtain. 10 all pros out eleven positions. Right? Terry was along for the ride. No disrespect, but Glenda could have won a few superbowls with Joe Green jack ham dwight wight etc etc etc.

"I don't need to be a homer 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."

Brodie, I have to say this is fricking hillarious stuff. Thanks for giving me a chuckle and making me realize that its totally bizarre that the rest of the football doesnt just see Montana, Staubach, and Aaron Rodgers as the only elite QBs in the past 40 year. OOPS! I mean hyper elite.

I know you are but what am I.

Good come back niner john.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
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.

Watch it, man, he'll try to get you caught up in a circle jerk of words... you still have time to survive it. Too late for me, he got me dazed n confused

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Yourr a student of the game -- meaning you never saw joe play. Just tape. Right?

A student of watching film. Youtube. DVDs. Hogans Heroes. Three Stooges. Little Rascals. Anime. Flash. Avengers. Porn.

#WhoisNateDog #

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.

The niners did all of that in a conference that won 13 straight Super Bowls. It's not even close how strong the league used to be especially at the top. Pats deserve credit for dominating a watered down league that lends itself to a run like this if you have your s**t together. Indy is really the only other team in the cap era to have 7-8 year run that's really impressive.

There are not teams in today's NFL that are in the same league as the 85 bears, 86 Giants, Gibbs Skins and the Dallas Dynasty.

And those teams had nothing on the great teams of the 70s -- Steel Curtain, Doomsday Dallas, Oakland Just Win Baby Raiders No Name Dolphins. The deflation started way back.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

And those teams had nothing on the great teams of the 70s -- Steel Curtain, Doomsday Dallas, Oakland Just Win Baby Raiders No Name Dolphins. The deflation started way back.

I think the last really great team was the 1996 packers in the NFC and the 1998 Broncos in the AFC. But even that league (1996+ was kinda iffy), the cap enacted in 1993 was finally making an impact. Hell in 1996 you had 2 second year franchises make the conference finals.

No way those teams could compete with the golden teams of the 70's with hall of famers on both sides of the ball. The deflation progression in pro football among the elite teams was going from hall of famers on both sides of the ball to all pros on both sides of the ball to all pros on one side of the ball.

That's the cap at work.

I'm no student of the game, but I know the 4 comments above mine makes more sense than anything right now (and merit of course)...