Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by BobS:

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

Wrong, look up the back to back Super Bowls ending the 1978-79 seasons and what Bradshaw did in the regular season those years. He put up excellent numbers for that era. If you want to rip on his early career remember half his career was played pre-1977 where head shots were allowed and O-lineman basically had to grab their own jersey while blocking or were flagged. Quarterbacks were not well protected by their lineman or the refs. 1977 forward QB numbers started climbing a lot.

stat wise, there were other QBs better than Bradshaw during those days. he brought a lot of other intangibles to the table for that team, including great leadership. he also toughed it out like nobody else during that era. people want to say how tough that era way, which is fine, but a lot of QBs and RBs played scared during that time. Bradshaw was a different breed of a QB. would've probably made a really good MLB today

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:

Originally posted by BobS:

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

Wrong, look up the back to back Super Bowls ending the 1978-79 seasons and what Bradshaw did in the regular season those years. He put up excellent numbers for that era. If you want to rip on his early career remember half his career was played pre-1977 where head shots were allowed and O-lineman basically had to grab their own jersey while blocking or were flagged. Quarterbacks were not well protected by their lineman or the refs. 1977 forward QB numbers started climbing a lot.

stat wise, there were other QBs better than Bradshaw during those days. he brought a lot of other intangibles to the table for that team, including great leadership. he also toughed it out like nobody else during that era. people want to say how tough that era way, which is fine, but a lot of QBs and RBs played scared during that time. Bradshaw was a different breed of a QB. would've probably made a really good MLB today

stop trying to make sense. Even though Bradshaw is in the HOF, a 2 time SB MVP, and had 3 great performances in the biggest game, a certain person in here doesnt think he had much of an impact in their titles. Doesnt matter that the Steelers couldnt run the ball in SBs 13 and 14 and needed Bradshaw to come up big. Doesnt matter that the Steelers great D gave up 31 pts to Dallas and needed the offense to score 35. We should all know that Bradshaw "didnt win any of those games" Right? LOL

Terry Bradshaw isnt in the class of Brady and Montana because NO QB should be rated simply on SB performances. His regular seasons were not as great. But that should not take away the fact that the guy was a great leader and qb.

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by elguapo:
Montana=Michael Jordan.

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

He didn't retire early injuries finished took him out.

and you can say the same thing for a lot of other players. if so and so didn't get injured during his career he would be GOAT. Ken Griffey Jr. comes to mind.

ya lets just argue what if, we'll be here all day.

Lets not forget how old he was when he retired. He lost that war with Father Time and injuries combined.

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.

getting to the 7 SBs in the non salary cap era are much rarer IMO. because it never happened in the SB era. it might never happen again in a long long time.

just think about it. brady went to 3 more SBs. 3. a great aaron rodgers only went to 1 SB in his career. that's how hard it is to get to the SB in this era.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
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.

can you do your math and calculate

6-0
11-1

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.

oh my..that's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard.

montana played in the nfl for 15 years and he went to the playoff 11 times. so what happened to the 3 years he played in the playoffs? why are you omitting those years?

and dan marino was very durable in the same era. stop making excuses.

Originally posted by elguapo:
Montana=Michael Jordan.

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

fixed. sorry, my pet peeve.

montana was 38...

Originally posted by natediaz:

can you do your math and calculate

6-0
11-1


oh my..that's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard.

montana played in the nfl for 15 years and he went to the playoff 11 times. so what happened to the 3 years he played in the playoffs? why are you omitting those years?

and dan marino was very durable in the same era. stop making excuses.

Not counting his years with kc just sf. Joe had one rookie year one strike year and two injury years where he played one game. Everything else is counted.

Originally posted by JimA49ers:
I'd much rather be 4-0 than 5-2. Losing in a super bowl is devastating to one's spirit. Even coach Marv Levy retired because he couldn't take it anymore. Awful, if they would have at least made that field goal in their first loss, wouldn't have been as bad, but wow. I can't imagine.

You can argue that 4-0 is better than 4-2 but only a loser would say 4-0 is better than 5-2. You play to win championships. When you don't even get into the SB you're still losing. Maybe it's not as big of a loss but any player worth a damn would say he'd rather win an extra SB even if it means having to deal with two losses in there.

Honestly this is silly that we're still having this discussion. I love Joe Montana but the guy wasn't perfect. Brady winning #5 and doing it the way they did gets him the edge. We'll see what he's got left in the tank because if he wins another one at age 39/40 nobody can argue this anymore.

For every argument why Brady isn't as good you can make a reverse argument.

Easier to play offense today but no salary cap when Joe played
Less powerhouse teams today but more parity means harder to keep a powerhouse team of your own
SB losses for Brady and none for Joe, more wins for Brady and more trips which meant Joe just lost earlier but still lost
etc...
No blowout victories for Brady in the SB, Joe playing with better teams vs much weaker AFC teams
Brady cheated...Joe admitted 49ers played dirty too and Rice used stickum(nobody is saying he's not the best suddenly)

There is simply no argument left with Brady getting #5 which cannot be countered. The fact that Brady grew up worshiping Montana and was a huge 49ers fan you'd think some of you guys could accept it easier but it doesn't take anything away from Joe and admitting that Brady is the best doesn't mean you have to hand in your 49ers fan card.

It's absurd how much peeps are blinded by Brady's stats and longetivy. If you don't see it that Joe had "it" over Brady then forever embolden yourselves to Brady's nutsac.

And for the record 4-0 in the big dance is better than 5-2. If you don't see this then you've never played competitive sports.

Who'd you rather be -- the 0-4 Bills or the 0-1 Titans?

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

It's absurd how much peeps are blinded by Brady's stats and longetivy. If you don't see it that Joe had "it" over Brady then forever embolden yourselves to Brady's nutsac.

True. Most everyone who idolizes brady uses stats to justify. The one intangible used i think is presnap read.


It would be nice to start another thread comparing the mental game between brady and montana. I think only thl or johnny del should post there. That really would be interesting, and relevant. As opposed to arguing about super bowls playoff percentages salary caps etc. Tangential stuff.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
It's absurd how much peeps are blinded by Brady's stats and longetivy. If you don't see it that Joe had "it" over Brady then forever embolden yourselves to Brady's nutsac.

And for the record 4-0 in the big dance is better than 5-2. If you don't see this then you've never played competitive sports.

Who'd you rather be -- the 0-4 Bills or the 0-1 Titans?

Just nonsense. A true competitor would always want to have made it to the SB 4 times rather than just once and have had the chance on the biggest stage.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
And for the record 4-0 in the big dance is better than 5-2. If you don't see this then you've never played competitive sports.

A true competitor wouldn't want to lose 3-49 to the Giants in the divisional round. A true competitor wouldn't want to lose 24-36 the Vikings, and play so poorly that he was benched for his backup in the 3rd quarter.

But hey, those games didn't happen in the "big dance", so let's continue sweeping them under the rug and pretend they didn't happen.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

It's absurd how much peeps are blinded by Brady's stats and longetivy. If you don't see it that Joe had "it" over Brady then forever embolden yourselves to Brady's nutsac.

And for the record 4-0 in the big dance is better than 5-2. If you don't see this then you've never played competitive sports.

Who'd you rather be -- the 0-4 Bills or the 0-1 Titans?

I'll take Jim Kelly's career over McNair's any day of the week. I'd be the Bills over the Titans any time. Ideally you'd want a ring but to think it's better to be to come in 9th than 2nd is just stupid.

4-0 is much better than 5-2 with cheating and the tuck rule. It's funny how none of you Brady supporters are even mentioning they would've never won some of those Super Bowls if they had not videotape practices. Ask the Rams and Marshall Faulk if that made a difference in that three. Victory? You guys are so blind it's ridiculous.Considering Brady could never dominate a team in the Super Bowl, cheating definitely gave them the win. Now if New England won by more than 10 or so points or blew them out like Montana did, they would've won regardless. But that is not the case. That is why deflate gate wasn't a big deal because even if they did deflate the balls and cheat they blew out the other team that it would not of made the difference.

Montana was as close to perfect as you can get. More than Brady. But I guess losing the big dance twice and winning because of cheating and the tuck rule doesn't make a difference to any of you. That is hilarious it's serious denial