Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Your problem is your only factoring in the SB like the rest of the season means jack sh and any year they fall short in the wild card is irrelevant. Your formula is pretty flawed.

Let's say Montana and Brady both had a 10 year career with the same SB results they have now. NE and Tom would be more dominant. 5 SB wins, 7 appearances > 4 SB wins in 4 SB appearances but say 6 wildcard losses. It's not the case Brady has a lot more years than Joe but people need to get over the SB record. You either won it all or fell short every year. Montana doesn't get a free pass because we lost in the wild card not the SB.

First of all, its not my formula.

Second, i'm not saying any of what you are saying. I'm saying 6% is less than 16 %

Thats all. Whats so dumb about that.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

First of all, its not my formula.

Second, i'm not saying any of what you are saying. I'm saying 6% is less than 16 %

Thats all. Whats so dumb about that.

I'm not saying dumb just very flawed because you're only looking at the odds of their SB record. Teams play entire seasons to get there though. Under your formula a loss in the wild card is irrelevant but a loss in the SB is held against you. Do you not see that as a problem? You started out by saying I've already mathematically proven we were more dominant and while I actually agree with your final outcome the metrics you used is something I don't really agree with. NE is not more dominant if they lost to BLT opposed to the Giants those 2 years. You're implying they would be.

Originally posted by midrdan:
A couple of points here:

1. The rules back then allowed WRs to be touched 5 yards or more down the field. It isn't that they were getting mauled. But checking, grabbing, etc. was legal.

2. The rules today prevent QBs from getting hit above the shoulders and below the waist. They may still get trucked by bigger players but look at the hit that knocked Montana out of the NFC Championship game. Marshall lowered his helmet into the back of Montana's neck and head. That hit would be illegal today and players are now taught to not hit that way. These rules have allowed guys to play into their late 30s.

3. It was simply harder to get to SBs when Joe played. You fault the guy for only playing in 4 SBs, but that is because his teams were playing truly great teams in the playoffs. The 86 and 90 Giants won the SB. The 83 Redskins lost SB but frankly the 49ers should have won that championship game but for the phantom PI on Lott. And the Redskins did win 3 others.

Brady has been to 7 SBs ... crazy good. But name the dominant teams they have had to go through over the years. In today's NFL if you have a great QB and a mediocre team you have a shot at the SB. How did that formula pan out for Elway or Marino in the 1980s? Once they played the Giants/Redskins/49ers they got rolled.

The 1980s were a 3 or 4 team league and they all played in the same conference. Now? Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Seattle, Saints, Green Bay, St. Louis, Giants win SBs and then miss the playoffs the next year ... it's a wide open league. Credit goes to NE in this era for maintaining consistent success but the fact is they haven't had to consistently play a few juggernauts every year.

How many SBs would the 49ers have won if they had Montana, Rice and Lott for a decade and the Bears couldn't keep their defense, the Giants couldn't afford a back up like Hostetler, and the Redskins couldn't keep their entire O Line for a decade? You think Walsh wouldn't have been able to coach in the salary cap era if he had his 7-8 core guys? He won SBs with three different WR lineups, two different backfields, three different DLs, etc.

The niners were stacked because of the draft - the 86 draft was epic. And all those dudes would have still been playing under their rookie contracts in the 88 and 89 SBs.

1. Nobody is questioning the fact that it was easier to play defense in that era. However every other team played by the same rules. How many other QBs are doing what Brady is doing in this era?

2. Can we please stop this crap? The bolded line is just straight alternative facts. He hit Montana in the back because Montana rolled out, the rules for outside the pocket aren't the same not to mention he didn't hit him in the neck/head. He hit him in the back which would be perfectly legal today. As for the rules allowing guys to play into their late 30s, all of them? Nice blanket statement. Someone else has already covered this. Some guys get injured more than others. Brady has been healthy pretty much all of his career outside of one serious knee injury which would've sidelined any QB in the game. Look at Andrew Luck, Big Ben, RG3, Tony Romo or a handful of other guys who keep getting hurt within today's rules which you're trying to insinuate guys can't somehow get hurt.

Have you seen what Brady eats? Or more like what he doesn't eat? Montana was a straight up stud but I don't see him putting in the crazy training/nutrition that Brady is doing when there were reports of him doing blow. So the idea that Brady would be injury riddled if he played in the 80s or that Montana would never get hurt playing today is a reach.

3. Once again this logic is iffy. The 49ers were the most talented team in that era and they were able to retain all of their great players without concerns for salary cap. Yes playoff games were against tough teams as well but getting to the playoffs was a cakewalk. You could essentially just skip the regular season and get to the playoffs most years. This era because of the salary cap you see teams go from worst to first all the time which makes it that much harder to teams like the Pats to keep staying on top. Yes they may get a couple of easy playoff games here and there but with the salary cap and the constant turnover and the fact that it's one and out you never know what can happen. We've seen plenty of these low win teams who win their pathetic division create upsets all the time in the postseason. Hell we saw a 9-7 team go into our house and beat us in the NFC Championship game in 2011 after they went into GB and beat the 15-1 Green Bay Packers who everyone was predicting would win the SB that year. All it takes is one off game at the wrong time and you're beaten by a lesser team and with the salary cap the difference in teams is not nearly the same as it was in the 80s where a powerhouse team could still make mistakes and still come away with pretty easy wins most of the time.

I'm confused by the last part of your post...it's like you started saying the same thing I was and then came back to your own conclusions. Are you thinking that the Pats are playing by a different set of rules than other teams? Why would the 49ers keep all those players but you'd expect the rest of the good teams to not do the same? The whole point of making the comparison is that the 49ers would NOT be able to keep all of their great players just like the rest of the teams and would have to pick and chose who they could keep and fill in the other positions with much cheaper/lesser options.

The niners were stacked because of their draft but it sure helps when you don't have to worry about vets leaving due to salary cap issues.

I wasn't making any claim outside of the SB. It's a legitimate comparison, which is the more impressive achievement, two win 4 out of 4 or 5 out of 7.

Of course it doesn't take into account actually playing in the game -- that's another stat.

Here's the line you are looking for:

joe career 12 years played (2 years, one 1 game played) 4 SB appearance 4 SB wins
tom career 17 years played (2 years, one 1 game played) 7 SB appearance 5 SB wins

You can play games with this. If you take out rookie year, injury years, and strike years:

joe career 8 years played (2 years, one 1 game played, 1 rookie year, 1 strike year) 4 SB appearance 4 SB wins
tom career 15 years played (1 year, one 1 game played, 1 year rookie year) 7 SB appearance 5 SB wins

Both are pretty impressive.

But, with a little assist, Joe gets to the SB 50% of the time, and wins it too.

It's controversial, so we won't go there.

Originally posted by elguapo:
No maybe you should think before you post. If the running game was basically the Steelers offense because as we all know Bradshaw was not a very good passer. His career touchdown to interception ratio was one to one. So getting the MVP award does not necessarily mean that player was the main reason they won. The teams he played focused on stopping the run almost every single play so of course the passing lanes were open when you have two hall of fame receivers so again almost any quarterback can throw 300 yards if the opposing defense is stacking up against the run and you have two Hall of Fame wide receivers getting open all day. Think!!!! And you might want to do some research before blindly saying that Bradshaw was the MVP and a huge reason they won 2 Super Bowls. Did you even watch those games and see the WRs making plays all day, that is extremely shortsighted. besides that please use some common sense. If you watch football you will see that when teams load the box with eight and nine people quite often the passing game opens up. I guess you forgot about that didn't you?

Anyways, here's to Montana the GOAT. I loved the fact that he was mobile so that helped him under pressure whereas a great qb like Brady has folded against the giants twice and last year against the broncos. That would of helped Brady but that is another attribute (not a necessity but when talking about the 2 that could be the difference in the best) why Montana was the full package and Brady was not. Also, Montana was great in every Super Bowl and Tom Brady was more of a game manager. Montana never was like that. He never needed his defense he was the offense. Brady took longer to develop and as Bill wall said Joe Montana was great from the point he put on a bib. Hahaha. Funny but true.

He folded against them? Folded implies a guy who gives up and can't do a thing to help his team out.

Brady lost the two Giants games watching his defense give up game winning points after he got them or had the lead most of the game. The miracle David Tyree catch and the Wes Welker drop with the Pats looking to kill the clock.

Last year against the Broncos was more proof of why Brady is great. The Broncos were killing him and he never folded. The guy was getting no time to throw the ball and managed to hang in there to get the Pats a TD with 12 seconds left in the game. If it wasn't for the kicker missing an earlier XP attempt he ties the game right there. Who knows what happens in OT.

The idea that because Joe was more mobile that he wouldn't be bothered by the same defenses that made Brady look mortal is silly. You think he's beating Von Miller to the corner?

As for Brady being more of a game manager early on well he didn't exactly have Bill Walsh installing an offense perfect for him and he didn't exactly have terrific weapons at his disposal. He did what he needed to do. He also got his first SB win against one of the best teams in league history in the biggest upset in SB history iirc. Did Joe ever win a SB he was an underdog in?

Plus the argument of Brady being a game manager is silly considering at that point the rules weren't so much in favor of the offense and his numbers exceeded what Montana did early in his career and being great from the point he put a bib on....how good was he as a rookie? How good was he his 2nd year in the league?

We can make silly breakdowns all over the place trying to discredit the other guy to prop up the other like Montana won his first SB in his 3rd season. Brady did it his first season starting and second season in the NFL.

At the end of the day both guys are the best to ever play the game. The best QB of their respective eras but I'm not sure how you can see what Brady is doing right now and try to put him down saying he's not a full package. The guy has 7 trips to the SB, 5 wins and 2 losses which came down to absolutely ridiculous plays away from being wins.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
I wasn't making any claim outside of the SB. It's a legitimate comparison, which is the more impressive achievement, two win 4 out of 4 or 5 out of 7.

Of course it doesn't take into account actually playing in the game -- that's another stat.

Here's the line you are looking for:

joe career 12 years played (2 years, one 1 game played) 4 SB appearance 4 SB wins
tom career 17 years played (2 years, one 1 game played) 7 SB appearance 5 SB wins

You can play games with this. If you take out rookie year, injury years, and strike years:

joe career 8 years played (2 years, one 1 game played, 1 rookie year, 1 strike year) 4 SB appearance 4 SB wins
tom career 15 years played (1 year, one 1 game played, 1 year rookie year) 7 SB appearance 5 SB wins

Both are pretty impressive.

But, with a little assist, Joe gets to the SB 50% of the time, and wins it too.

It's controversial, so we won't go there.

You can't be serious with this. Seriously it's sad that some of you guys are clinging to this point.

This is the SB we're talking about. 5 out of 7 is a lot more impressive than 4 of 4. How far do you want to take this perfect thing? 2-0 better than 5 of 7? 3-0 better than 5-2? Does that mean Brady was a better QB when he was 3-0 in SBs vs now that he's 5-2?

In your comparison of their careers do you want to consider salary cap at all? How many of those years did Montana have a top 5 defense? How many years he had top talent on offense?

I

Originally posted by genus49:

5 out of 7 is a lot more impressive than 4 of 4.

There are many ways to define impressive.

All the probabilities are saying is that 4 out of 4 is more rare. That's all.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

I wasn't making any claim outside of the SB. It's a legitimate comparison, which is the more impressive achievement, two win 4 out of 4 or 5 out of 7.

Of course it doesn't take into account actually playing in the game -- that's another stat.

Here's the line you are looking for:

joe career 12 years played (2 years, one 1 game played) 4 SB appearance 4 SB wins
tom career 17 years played (2 years, one 1 game played) 7 SB appearance 5 SB wins

You can play games with this. If you take out rookie year, injury years, and strike years:

joe career 8 years played (2 years, one 1 game played, 1 rookie year, 1 strike year) 4 SB appearance 4 SB wins
tom career 15 years played (1 year, one 1 game played, 1 year rookie year) 7 SB appearance 5 SB wins

Both are pretty impressive.

But, with a little assist, Joe gets to the SB 50% of the time, and wins it too.

It's controversial, so we won't go there.

It's more impressive to win 5 Super Bowls. 5 > 4. The losses don't factor in because all 31 teams were eliminated. If you just look at the SB like you and many other do only 1 was.

Now once you get into 4 in 12 years compared to 5 in 17 that's where the argument sways to Joe. Young would later win the 5th SB for us in a shorter time than what NE accomplished. To me Tom needs 1 more to claim best ever.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

I

Originally posted by genus49:

5 out of 7 is a lot more impressive than 4 of 4.

There are many ways to define impressive.

All the probabilities are saying is that 4 out of 4 is more rare. That's all.

No it's not , Bradshaw is also 4-0.

No one else has as many SB wins and appearances.

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

No it's not , Bradshaw is also 4-0.

No one else has as many SB wins and appearances.

It kind of ignores that you got to earn those appearances. Brady is the only player period who's been to 7 SB's. It doesn't get anymore rare than that.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

No it's not , Bradshaw is also 4-0.

No one else has as many SB wins and appearances.

It kind of ignores that you got to earn those appearances. Brady is the only player period who's been to 7 SB's. It doesn't get anymore rare than that.

He is the only one with 5 SB rings as a starting QB, and the only one with 7 appearances as a starting QB.

Joe is the 2nd one to go 4-0.

It doesn't get anymore rare than that for Brady

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by elguapo:
That might be true to you but you and I know that Bradshaw did not win any of those games it was mainly the defense and running game. So again comparing Brady and Montana when they are that close the big game does matter nobody's pretending losses don't count or aren't as important however in the Super Bowl you need to be at your very best and Brady has not been. Just saying

We both agree Montana is better so we're not far apart but at what point do you stop? Is 6-2 better than 4-0? 7-2 better than 4-0? 2-0 better than 5-2? How fixated can you be about losing in the SB? It's an argument I hate because it's saying Eli was better than Jim Kelly. No, he wasn't. I don't care about the losses. If Tom got to the SB 10 years straight and went 5-5 Tom wins. 5>4 but the biggest reason why Tom has more rings is because today's rule make it easier to stay healthy. Give me dominance over longevity. As of now we were more dominant.

I've already presented the probabilities.

4-0 == 6% chance.
5-2 == 16% chance.

The 4-0 is about three times less likely to occur.

Brady has a better postseason winning percentage (.735 to .695), and he has more Super Bowl victories. That's as clear cut as it gets. This "never lost a Super Bowl" argument is pedantic and grasping at straws.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
I

There are many ways to define impressive.

All the probabilities are saying is that 4 out of 4 is more rare. That's all.

Teams play to win championships. Every year a team doesn't get that last W they're losing.

Being 4-0 in the SB is a terrific achievement. However not getting to the SB for a chance at #5 means a loss earlier in the season/playoffs. The perfection is a mirage.

Plus as someone already brought up above. Terry Bradshaw was also 4 for 4. So how rare is that? Any other QB go to 7 SBs? Any other QB win 5?

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
I

There are many ways to define impressive.

All the probabilities are saying is that 4 out of 4 is more rare. That's all.

Teams play to win championships. Every year a team doesn't get that last W they're losing.

Being 4-0 in the SB is a terrific achievement. However not getting to the SB for a chance at #5 means a loss earlier in the season/playoffs. The perfection is a mirage.

Plus as someone already brought up above. Terry Bradshaw was also 4 for 4. So how rare is that? Any other QB go to 7 SBs? Any other QB win 5?

I seriously doubt there is a player alive that would say he would rather be 4-0 in Superbowls than 5-2.

Montana=Michael Jordan.

Would of kept winning championships if they both didn't retire early. Done.