Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by theduke85:

Dude, I don't care if you watched the game or not. First of all, the game was over 30 years ago. You're acting like you remember it clear as day. You can't hold an objective opinion on stuff that happened a week ago, how am I supposed to believe that you can hold an objective opinion on something that happened 30 years ago? I can only imagine what sort of revisionist history goes on in your head when you replay that game in your mind.

Seriously, your "statistically, 4-0 in the Super Bowl is more improbable" is one of the most asinine things I've read on this board. That's not even hyperbole. I'm just dumbfounded that you can somehow rationalize that in your head. And then in a game where Joe Montana had 0 TD, 2 INT and a 33 passer rating, you try to argue that he "didn't play bad". Good grief.

Acknowledging greatness -- even if it means conceding a player is better than one of our own -- has nothing to do with a "man crush", it's basic sportsmanship, something that insecure homers like yourself are apparently completely devoid of. I enjoy debating topics like that, but you have b*****dized this conversation so many times that you've basically entered elguapo territory where it's not even worth engaging you anymore.

Probabilities are asinine. Ok. That makes sense. You did see the game, didnt you? You sound like a thirty something dude with you're nose in fantasy stats with all the answers to everything. No need to watch anyone play.

Originally posted by natediaz:
you've missed my obvious point earlier. niners were loaded. they were the greatest show on earth. no team that day would've beaten the niners. that team is considered top 3 greatest team ever by a reason.

no team in the SB is bad. but when a team beats 55-10 that means it's a mismatch.

This. So many guys in here are being giant hypocrites with their logic.

brb NFC was filled with powerhouse teams and it made it that much harder to get to the SB and Joe never lost in the SB which means if he got to more he'd win more

....maybe because all the good teams were in the NFC and he never had a real challenge in the SB?

brb Brady and the Pats cheated

...so did the 49ers they just didn't get caught

etc.

And like nate says above the 49ers were loaded. Yes it was in part due to great drafting and terrific coaching but they were still the most talented team in that era, especially in 89 and they didn't have to worry about losing their talent. They also played at a time without social media and the internet...things that make it very easy for guys to get in trouble with the law.

That hasn't been mentioned at all but I wonder just how many guys would've been caught doing chit which would've gotten them suspended today if social media/internet and the media coverage we have today would've been around in those days?

Imagine if Lawrence Taylor pulled the chit he was pulling in those days today? He'd be out of the league in a couple of seasons.

The niners were loaded....what?

What years specifically would say loaded?

I can only think of a few seasons where they had a front seven that you maybe could classify as dominant.. not too many though..

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Probabilities are asinine. Ok. That makes sense. You did see the game, didnt you? You sound like a thirty something dude with you're nose in fantasy stats with all the answers to everything. No need to watch anyone play.

Cars aren't asinine, but sometimes immature teenagers misuse them in dangerous, reckless ways.

Similarly, probabilities aren't asinine either, but sometimes insecure 49ers fans deliberately (or delusionally) use misleading, disingenuous underlying datasets, rendering any meaningful statistical analysis on them useless.

You could ask a second grader if it's better to finish in 2nd place or in 6th place and they would all give you the right answer. Somehow, you and a host of other 49ers fans continue to get the answer to that question wrong. It is absolutely laughable.

Originally posted by genus49:
brb NFC was filled with powerhouse teams and it made it that much harder to get to the SB and Joe never lost in the SB which means if he got to more he'd win more

....maybe because all the good teams were in the NFC and he never had a real challenge in the SB?

And I do actually think there's a lot of merit to this argument, because remember, the NFC won 15 out of 16 Super Bowls starting in 1982. You can't say "Montana dominated every Super Bowl!" but then dismiss his struggles in the NFC playoffs with "well, you don't understand, he was playing really, really good teams!" That is having your cake and eating it too!

Originally posted by theduke85:

Cars aren't asinine, but sometimes immature teenagers misuse them in dangerous, reckless ways.

Similarly, probabilities aren't asinine either, but sometimes insecure 49ers fans deliberately (or delusionally) use misleading, disingenuous underlying datasets, rendering any meaningful statistical analysis on them useless.

You could ask a second grader if it's better to finish in 2nd place or in 6th place and they would all give you the right answer. Somehow, you and a host of other 49ers fans continue to get the answer to that question wrong. It is absolutely laughable.

Look. The only observation being made is that its less probable to win four in a row than five out of seven. There are many arguments about which is better or more meaningful. This is only one fact introduced in the debate.

For no reason known to man you virulantly loathe this observation which is your hang up alone. I think that you are the one being sloppy and careless by taking joes stats in one playoff game completely out of the game context showing he somehow choked in that game in which he was unconscious for several minutes.

And you think i am distorting history?

Again -- all these Brady nuthuggers blinded by his longetivy. So crown Tim Duncan better than Jordan while you are at it. So desperate to prove that their boy Brady is the greatest ever. That is simply not a FACT. It's only your blinded opinion.

Food for thought:

# of All Pro players Brady had the luxury of working with over his career: 26
# of All Pro players Montana had the luxury of working with over his career: 13

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Again -- all these Brady nuthuggers blinded by his longetivy. So crown Tim Duncan better than Jordan while you are at it. So desperate to prove that their boy Brady is the greatest ever. That is simply not a FACT. It's only your blinded opinion.

Food for thought:

# of All Pro players Brady had the luxury of working with over his career: 26
# of All Pro players Montana had the luxury of working with over his career: 13

Who are those players?

And doesn't his "longevity" mean he's been around longer to possibly play with more?

And longevity is nothing to be looked down upon. Montana could've been a lot better than he was if he had better longevity.

Not to mention Montana retired at 38, let's not pretend like he wasn't around for a while.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Again -- all these Brady nuthuggers blinded by his longetivy. So crown Tim Duncan better than Jordan while you are at it. So desperate to prove that their boy Brady is the greatest ever. That is simply not a FACT. It's only your blinded opinion.

Food for thought:

# of All Pro players Brady had the luxury of working with over his career: 26
# of All Pro players Montana had the luxury of working with over his career: 13

Duncan has more rings than MJ? Since when.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Again -- all these Brady nuthuggers blinded by his longetivy. So crown Tim Duncan better than Jordan while you are at it. So desperate to prove that their boy Brady is the greatest ever. That is simply not a FACT. It's only your blinded opinion.

Well, Tim Duncan hasn't won more championships than Jordan, so that is an awful analogy.

The only "nuthuggers" are the one clinging to the belief that Montana is still king. The rest of the world has accepted that Brady is better. It's time for 49ers fans to do the same. Again, it's just a matter of sportsmanship.

Originally posted by theduke85:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Again -- all these Brady nuthuggers blinded by his longetivy. So crown Tim Duncan better than Jordan while you are at it. So desperate to prove that their boy Brady is the greatest ever. That is simply not a FACT. It's only your blinded opinion.

Well, Tim Duncan hasn't won more championships than Jordan, so that is an awful analogy.

The only "nuthuggers" are the one clinging to the belief that Montana is still king. The rest of the world has accepted that Brady is better. It's time for 49ers fans to do the same. Again, it's just a matter of sportsmanship.

Substitute Bill Russell then for Duncan. Based on your logic Otto Graham is the best ever QB.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Substitute Bill Russell then for Duncan. Based on your logic Otto Graham is the best ever QB.

Nobody says Russell because he played in 1960. Baseball is the only sport where people care about history.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Again -- all these Brady nuthuggers blinded by his longetivy. So crown Tim Duncan better than Jordan while you are at it. So desperate to prove that their boy Brady is the greatest ever. That is simply not a FACT. It's only your blinded opinion.

Food for thought:

# of All Pro players Brady had the luxury of working with over his career: 26
# of All Pro players Montana had the luxury of working with over his career: 13

brady is regarded as the clutchiest player in the history passing montana in the clutch department. he's not tim duncan. he's MJ.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Substitute Bill Russell then for Duncan. Based on your logic Otto Graham is the best ever QB.

What is your logic?

Brady has more SB wins
Brady has more regular season wins
Brady has more playoff wins

Oh right...longevity. Because those 2 extra seasons that Brady played over Montana's 15 years in the league means he's a compiler whose only claim to fame is because he's played for a while correct?

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Substitute Bill Russell then for Duncan. Based on your logic Otto Graham is the best ever QB.

russell isn't a current player who played in a bigger faster league. comparison is not valid.

something like this would be more valid IMO -

montana - pete sampras
brady - roger federer

montana - steffi graff
brady - serena williams