Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by theduke85:

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.

They happened. He was benched for Young. Then the following season they platooned and went through a very public scrap. And Joe fended an eventual hall of famer off for another three seasons, winning 2 SBs.

That's pressure. Dealing with pressure in the locker room daily for years and still competing and winning. Dude could deal with pressure like no other.

Losing to the Giants 49-3? Yeah ... he was knocked unconscious by Jim Burt on a hit that would have been illegal today (hit him high after the ball was thrown). That happened too.

That 1986 game ... we were losing 21-3 in the second quarter (after Rice fumbled a sure touchdown as he was running untouched into the end zone) when Montana got knocked out. His throw on that hit was returned for a TD.

The back up then came in (Kemp?) and threw two more pick sixes and the route was on. 1987 we acquire Steve Young and the rest is history.

Originally posted by elguapo:
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

It's hilarious that people still go to the cheating route to discredit the Pats and Brady. That's where you know desperation creeps in.

Yeah let's ask Marshall Faulk because somehow he's not a butthurt b***h who just couldn't believe that they lost the game while being 14 point favorites? The story that was put out there that they filmed the Rams walkthrough was debunked and the reporter who released it said he got conned but yeah let's act like it's fact and run with it.

Let's forget the fact that there have been numerous reports of the 49ers doing cheap tactics to get a competitive advantage. Is Jerry Rice still the best receiver or is he a cheating bum? Because using stickum is certainly a hell of a lot worse than what the Pats did. Brady by the way had nothing to do with taping defensive signals and the whole deflate gate is simply a pathetic witch hunt...notice how they won the SB this year? Or the game after they were "busted"?

So why don't you come back with some facts vs total what ifs and no substance?

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by elguapo:
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

It's hilarious that people still go to the cheating route to discredit the Pats and Brady. That's where you know desperation creeps in.

Yeah let's ask Marshall Faulk because somehow he's not a butthurt b***h who just couldn't believe that they lost the game while being 14 point favorites? The story that was put out there that they filmed the Rams walkthrough was debunked and the reporter who released it said he got conned but yeah let's act like it's fact and run with it.

Let's forget the fact that there have been numerous reports of the 49ers doing cheap tactics to get a competitive advantage. Is Jerry Rice still the best receiver or is he a cheating bum? Because using stickum is certainly a hell of a lot worse than what the Pats did. Brady by the way had nothing to do with taping defensive signals and the whole deflate gate is simply a pathetic witch hunt...notice how they won the SB this year? Or the game after they were "busted"?

So why don't you come back with some facts vs total what ifs and no substance?

lol the annoying part is that he's repeated the same misinformed views over a dozen times already.

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it

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?

lol this is such defeatist attitude. Waah waaah can't go to teh big dance and lose...i'd rather lose earlier.

Once again as the great Herman Edwards said - you play to WIN the game. If you're not winning the SB at the end of the season your season is wasted.

Joe had it over Brady how? He was more mobile, what else? Accuracy? Clutch factor? Durability?

btw longevity is very important. How many great talents were wasted because they couldn't stay healthy? is Terrell Davis better than Emmitt Smith?

Only a loser would say they play competitive sports and would rather be 4-0 in the biggest game vs 5-2. More wins and more chances. What do you think happened all those other times Joe went to the playoffs and didn't win a ring? Think he went out on top?

Most wins in NFL history.
Most playoff wins in NFL history.
Most SB wins in NFL history.

So once again, what did Joe really have over Brady? What is this "IT" because to me it's basically something you're throwing out there which cannot be supported by facts or logic and this is coming from someone who definitely believes in intangibles and the "it factor" but i'm not seeing how Montana has "IT" and Brady doesn't.

Originally posted by midrdan:
They happened. He was benched for Young. Then the following season they platooned and went through a very public scrap. And Joe fended an eventual hall of famer off for another three seasons, winning 2 SBs.

That's pressure. Dealing with pressure in the locker room daily for years and still competing and winning. Dude could deal with pressure like no other.

Losing to the Giants 49-3? Yeah ... he was knocked unconscious by Jim Burt on a hit that would have been illegal today (hit him high after the ball was thrown). That happened too.

Nobody is here to dog Joe Montana. I'm pretty sure we all love the guy but the guys in here trying to discredit Brady just to keep one of our own on top(when all logic points otherwise) like to make it seem the guy was perfection and act like he never lost. Yes 4-0 is awesome and it would be perfection if he played 4 seasons. He played a lot more than that and his last game was a loss.

If you asked anyone at the beginning of the season if they'd like to go to the SB how many would say no because they're afraid of losing in it?

Originally posted by theduke85:

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.

You're blaming the 49-3 beatdown on Joe? You can't be serious. Did you watch that game?

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by theduke85:

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.

You're blaming the 49-3 beatdown on Joe? You can't be serious. Did you watch that game?

that's not what he's saying...

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?

both QBs had 'it'. that's the most cliche of them all, but both had 'it'. if you deny brady didn't have 'it' then i don't know what to say.

otto graham won 7 championships. so i guess otto graham > montana

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
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.

and why wouldn't you count the years with KC? are you saying we should not count the years with broncos for manning? players do find new home.

and if you are leaving some years out then how about take out 2006 and 2013 for brady then? brady had nobody to play with in those years. he was throwing to reche caldwell, kembril thompkins of the world. gronk was hurt in 13. it was a criminal what pats did to brady for those years, not giving him enough weapons.

Originally posted by elguapo:
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

people still bring up tuck rule?

having a loaded team in none salary cap era is much more unfair advantage than the wrong camera angles and deflated football. first science proved deflategate is a hogwash, and brady actually played better with perfectly inflated football. and according to jimmy johnson and bill cowher everybody was filming each other. you are naive to think pats are the only one who did it. and 2007 proved pats are dominant regardless of spying on other teams.

and you do know jerry rice openly admitted he used a stickum right? and montana did say something like 'if you aren't cheating, you aren't trying'

winners win. niners were winners. pats were winners. both were great organization. niners had 2 great HOF QBs. pats had 1. they mirror each other in alot of ways. i just think what the pats have done is more impressive because they had to do it in the salary cap era.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by theduke85:

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.

You're blaming the 49-3 beatdown on Joe? You can't be serious. Did you watch that game?

I didn't say that. I asked, would you rather lose 49-3 in the divisional round (like Montana), or would you rather lose the Super Bowl on a last-minute touchdown (like Brady)?

People are so delusional on this issue that they give Montana a pass for a 49-3 loss against the Giants... and then in the next breath, they act as if Brady losing the 2007 Super Bowl (Eli threw a game-winning touchdown pass to Plaxico Burrress with 35 seconds left in the game) is some unforgivable blemish on his record.

It is absolutely, utterly, incomprehensibly stupid. Completely delusional. It's like listening to a Bapist trying to disprove evolution.

The Patriots were 2 minutes away from winning a Super Bowl. Brady had a mediocre game, but he threw a TD to Moss with 2:42 left in the game to put his team up 14-10. The 49ers were dismantled by the Giants, and Montana played like absolute garbage before he was knocked out of the game (53.3 CMP%, 98 yards, 34.2 passer rating, 0 TD, 2 INT).

Originally posted by theduke85:
I didn't say that. I asked, would you rather lose 49-3 in the divisional round (like Montana), or would you rather lose the Super Bowl on a last-minute touchdown (like Brady)?

People are so delusional on this issue that they give Montana a pass for a 49-3 loss against the Giants... and then in the next breath, they act as if Brady losing the 2007 Super Bowl (Eli threw a game-winning touchdown pass to Plaxico Burrress with 35 seconds left in the game) is some unforgivable blemish on his record.

It is absolutely, utterly, incomprehensibly stupid. Completely delusional. It's like listening to a Bapist trying to disprove evolution.

The Patriots were 2 minutes away from winning a Super Bowl. Brady had a mediocre game, but he threw a TD to Moss with 2:42 left in the game to put his team up 14-10. The 49ers were dismantled by the Giants, and Montana played like absolute garbage before he was knocked out of the game (53.3 CMP%, 98 yards, 34.2 passer rating, 0 TD, 2 INT).

Obviously, you didn't see the game. No one's giving anyone a pass. But, only a person ignorant of the game would say he played like garbage. Your prejudices are showing.

Originally posted by natediaz:
and why wouldn't you count the years with KC? are you saying we should not count the years with broncos for manning? players do find new home.

and if you are leaving some years out then how about take out 2006 and 2013 for brady then? brady had nobody to play with in those years. he was throwing to reche caldwell, kembril thompkins of the world. gronk was hurt in 13. it was a criminal what pats did to brady for those years, not giving him enough weapons.

The 9ers did that to Joe too.

He won a super bowl.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! WELLL SERVED!!!

Originally posted by natediaz:
both QBs had 'it'. that's the most cliche of them all, but both had 'it'. if you deny brady didn't have 'it' then i don't know what to say.

otto graham won 7 championships. so i guess otto graham > montana

Could be.

As Joe and myself have pointed out, the GOAT argument only extends as far as there is tape. Before that, we just can't say.