Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Can we stop the Michael Jordan comparisons please?

Or comparisons to anyone outside of sports where 1 loss means you're done?

Maybe if Jordan never lost a game in the finals we'd have something to talk about. He lost games. In the NFL one bad bounce means you're going home in the playoffs.

Anyone think if the Pats played 7 game series against the Giants in 2007 they wouldn't hold the Championship trophy that year?

That dude is running out of crap to talk about. Brady nuthuggers...how about people who can discuss things without homer goggles on?

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:

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

The only annoying part is you. Bringing that up it's not a lie it was a fact they got cheating. They docked the patriots and Bill money and I believe draft picks what are you guys smoking. You are seriously in denial and it's hilarious. They got caught, you guys are pushing the lie that it did not happen. The NFL proved the patriots did this. They are cheaters. This gave them a humongous advantage and directly led to them winning. Saying other teams did it is a cop out unless you can prove it maybe, maybe not but saying that all teams did it is a joke as well. The patriots did in fact get caught so you guys better get your facts straight it's very easy. Look it up and he will see the coach getting fined and the patriots getting screwed. They are cheaters that definitely helped Tom Brady and the whole organization. Deal with it.

Originally posted by JimA49ers:

They are following Walsh's theory: It's better to get rid of a player while he still has a little left, than to keep him too long.

On a side note, is it really fair to blame the Niners for winning in non-cap years? My thought is, it didn't give them an advantage, as every team had that option. Where as Tuck rule, recording other teams, that was a pretty specific advantage to the pats.

Bingo. There were dominant teams in the 80s when Joe Montana played even dynasties like the New York Giants and Washington Redskins. The Bears were ridiculously good. All of these teams would've smoked the patriots even the Buffalo Bills and maybe the Broncos and browns.

Originally posted by elguapo:
The only annoying part is you. Bringing that up it's not a lie it was a fact they got cheating. They docked the patriots and Bill money and I believe draft picks what are you guys smoking. You are seriously in denial and it's hilarious. They got caught, you guys are pushing the lie that it did not happen. The NFL proved the patriots did this. They are cheaters. This gave them a humongous advantage and directly led to them winning. Saying other teams did it is a cop out unless you can prove it maybe, maybe not but saying that all teams did it is a joke as well. The patriots did in fact get caught so you guys better get your facts straight it's very easy. Look it up and he will see the coach getting fined and the patriots getting screwed. They are cheaters that definitely helped Tom Brady and the whole organization. Deal with it.

What did they get caught doing?

Do you even know what you're talking about? Seriously break down for us how the Patriots cheated. And then tell us how no other team in the league was doing the same exact thing. I'll wait.

Yes they were punished, fined and had their draft picks taken away. Is that what constitutes cheating now? Being caught and punished? I guess if someone commits murder then they're only a murder if they're caught right?

There have been plenty of coaches and players who said what the Pats were fined for was being done all across the league. It was being done here as well. Pats just got caught. The fact that they got fined so much for deflategate is absolutely ridiculous and was one of the biggest jokes the NFL has seen in its history.

Do you consider Jerry Rice to be a cheater? Bill Walsh? Our own players? All of them have admitted to doing something to bend or break the rules and gain a competitive advantage.

So how come the Pats cheating somehow disqualifies all his great accomplishments but when the 49ers cheat Joe Montana is still the unquestioned GOAT?

Originally posted by elguapo:
Bingo. There were dominant teams in the 80s when Joe Montana played even dynasties like the New York Giants and Washington Redskins. The Bears were ridiculously good. All of these teams would've smoked the patriots even the Buffalo Bills and maybe the Broncos and browns.

How many of those dominant teams stay dominant with the salary cap?

As for your last sentence that's total hypothetical BS. In fact if that hypothetical match-up was to happen you may be mistaken considering most guys today are bigger, stronger and faster than they were in those days...and they'd be playing by old school rules.

Then again make believe and hypotheticals are the only things you have left.

Originally posted by genus49:

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.

To original Al poster, Brady has not had 26 all pro teammates, maybe pro bowl teammates but that's a big difference. I guessing you made that same mistake with Montana....


Just on offense Brady had 24 pro bowl teammates in 15 seasons, (some of those are obviously the same player).

Just on offense Montana had 21 pro bowl teammates in 11 seasons (49ers),

Bottom line the original poster pointing out that Brady had 26 pro bowlers and Montana only 13 is irrelevant. Not sure those numbers are even correct but that number would make sense since the constant changeover in today's salary cap era.

Originally posted by Vegasodds101:

To original Al poster, Brady has not had 26 all pro teammates, maybe pro bowl teammates but that's a big difference. I guessing you made that same mistake with Montana....


Just on offense Brady had 24 pro bowl teammates in 15 seasons, (some of those are obviously the same player).

Just on offense Montana had 21 pro bowl teammates in 11 seasons (49ers),

Bottom line the original poster pointing out that Brady had 26 pro bowlers and Montana only 13 is irrelevant. Not sure those numbers are even correct but that number would make sense since the constant changeover in today's salary cap era.

I want him to address that to show how ridiculous the statement is. A guy getting an all pro nod when he plays with Brady for less than 5 years means what? 2 of them for the Pats were kickers, a bunch were special team standouts. Some guys played with Brady for 1 year then left.

Not sure how anyone can pretend that a Joe had less talent during his career with the niners with a straight face.

Originally posted by genus49:

What did they get caught doing?

Do you even know what you're talking about? Seriously break down for us how the Patriots cheated. And then tell us how no other team in the league was doing the same exact thing. I'll wait.

Yes they were punished, fined and had their draft picks taken away. Is that what constitutes cheating now? Being caught and punished? I guess if someone commits murder then they're only a murder if they're caught right?

There have been plenty of coaches and players who said what the Pats were fined for was being done all across the league. It was being done here as well. Pats just got caught. The fact that they got fined so much for deflategate is absolutely ridiculous and was one of the biggest jokes the NFL has seen in its history.

Do you consider Jerry Rice to be a cheater? Bill Walsh? Our own players? All of them have admitted to doing something to bend or break the rules and gain a competitive advantage.

So how come the Pats cheating somehow disqualifies all his great accomplishments but when the 49ers cheat Joe Montana is still the unquestioned GOAT?

It always truly amazes me how much fans don't know. Majority of people think spygate is Patriots taping practices. There is zero evidence of Patriots filming anyone's practice, ever, no matter what Marshall Faulk thinks. Spygate was about Patriots having a camera on the sideline which was used to film opponents sidelines during game. The filming of Rams practice actually came from a Boston reporter who found out the Pats film crew were on the field during Rams practice and jumped to the conclusion they filmed it. He had to write a letter of apology a while later in the paper. Only one team has ever been caught filming a practice, the Broncos. McDaniels was the coach at the time so, like everything else conclusions were jumped to and Patriots were blamed as McDaniels was a former employee. Unfortunately for haters, McDaneiels had nothing to do with it and actually was the one who turned tape over to NFL.

Belichick taped opponents signals it's a fact. How much it helped us just pure speculation. This one thing I know, as soon as the NFL stopped it, the Patriots offense along with Brady broke almost every offensive record in the book and went undefeated in reg season. Kind of put and end to the filming being the reason for thier success for me.

Since deflategate Brady has been better with the supposedly properly inflated footballs. It's put the end to that argument for me too.

I would have no qualms discrediting achievements of Pats if they dropped off after these "gates", fact of the matter is they have been better after the fact. It's just hard to hold it against them when it had no effect, actually being better without.

Originally posted by genus49:

I want him to address that to show how ridiculous the statement is. A guy getting an all pro nod when he plays with Brady for less than 5 years means what? 2 of them for the Pats were kickers, a bunch were special team standouts. Some guys played with Brady for 1 year then left.

Not sure how anyone can pretend that a Joe had less talent during his career with the niners with a straight face.

They say he had less talent but at the same time how much better the 49ers were along with whole NFC back then. They want their cake and to eat it too. For their eras, 49ers were a better team on avg pound for pound. I think most agree with this. But in the end it's an irrelevant argument, the competition was equal for both

They are vastly underestimating what puts Brady over the top and that's being able to win no matter who his teammates are, no matter who he is passing to, no matter what the game plan is. Roger Craig was one of the best two running backs ever, Joe won 3 SBs throwing to him out of the backfield....not a knock. Brady in his 7 SB's main target out of the backfield has been in order: JR Redmond, Kevin Faulk, Corey Dillon, Faulk, Danny Woodhead, Shane Vereen, and James WHite.

Originally posted by Vegasodds101:

I would have no qualms discrediting achievements of Pats if they dropped off after these "gates", fact of the matter is they have been better after the fact. It's just hard to hold it against them when it had no effect, actually being better without.

agreed. they were actually better after deflategate. and steelers' balls were deflated this year and wasn't it quickly dismissed? that's how insignificant this incident really was. and 11 year old girl debunked it already. not sure why people are still bring this up to diss brady.

honestly i don't even care if teams cheat. i know pete caroll gets the label for pushing the envelope too, and i absolutely don't mind it. it's the most competitive league. just win and i won't care if bunch of hawks are roidheads.

Originally posted by genus49:

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?

I agree with you. The argument of who is "best ever" is subjective. So many variables. These guys played in different eras. I may think the 80s was harder for a team to win, you may think now is. The rules today and the philosophy of the game today inflate passing statistics, so comparing raw stats doesn't resolve the debate.

To me, it comes down to who would you pick needing a TD to win the game with the ball on the 20 and two minutes to go. Everything else being equal, I would choose Joe. If the rules are 1980s and the defense is the '86 Bears I would choose Joe. If the rules are today's and the defense is the '16 Texans I choose Joe. You may choose Brady. That's all good. To me, I think Joe still thrives today. But I don't know whether the QBs that play today, including Brady, could manage the rules and elite defenses back then. They have never had to deal with those issues.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by Vegasodds101:
To original Al poster, Brady has not had 26 all pro teammates, maybe pro bowl teammates but that's a big difference. I guessing you made that same mistake with Montana....

Just on offense Brady had 24 pro bowl teammates in 15 seasons, (some of those are obviously the same player).

Just on offense Montana had 21 pro bowl teammates in 11 seasons (49ers),

Bottom line the original poster pointing out that Brady had 26 pro bowlers and Montana only 13 is irrelevant. Not sure those numbers are even correct but that number would make sense since the constant changeover in today's salary cap era.

I want him to address that to show how ridiculous the statement is. A guy getting an all pro nod when he plays with Brady for less than 5 years means what? 2 of them for the Pats were kickers, a bunch were special team standouts. Some guys played with Brady for 1 year then left.

Not sure how anyone can pretend that a Joe had less talent during his career with the niners with a straight face.

Lolz you think i pulled those numbers out of my ass? Unless wikipedia is wrong:

26 ALL PRO's for Brady, 13 for Montana. Not Pro-Bowlers. ALL PRO'S. And these are all unique individuals.

And yes that includes a light sprinkle of kickers and special teams for both players/teams and John Taylor only in on special teams.

Doesn't mean anything? WOW. Brady had an all universe roster in 2007 and still got punked by Eli.

Here's a little nugget you can digest. It should now be updated to "3" of the worst ever:

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/01/nfl-new-england-patriots-tom-brady-super-bowl-history-interceptions-stats-panthers-seahawks

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Lolz you think i pulled those numbers out of my ass? Unless wikipedia is wrong:

26 ALL PRO's for Brady, 13 for Montana. Not Pro-Bowlers. ALL PRO'S. And these are all unique individuals.

And yes that includes a light sprinkle of kickers and special teams for both players/teams and John Taylor only in on special teams.

Doesn't mean anything? WOW. Brady had an all universe roster in 2007 and still got punked by Eli.

Here's a little nugget you can digest. It should now be updated to "3" of the worst ever:

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/01/nfl-new-england-patriots-tom-brady-super-bowl-history-interceptions-stats-panthers-seahawks

Go ahead and list them out so we can see these amazing all pros(because we all know a guy getting all pro one year means he's an amazing player his whole career right?)

Pretending the teams Brady has had over his career are more talented than the 49ers teams is a joke. Maybe at some points but Montana had consistently great teams on both sides of the ball. Brady had spurts where both sides were talented but not nearly as often as Joe. That 89 team was one of the best teams in history of the game.

The Pats 2007 team was only that good because of Brady and Moss and that offense. Their defense was massively overrated and it showed in the SB when they couldn't hold a lead. They lost the game with seconds left on the clock after Brady got them the lead the defense couldn't hold with a miracle play where Eli should've been sacked 3 times and a miracle catch by Tyree, a dropped interception by Asante Samuel. And they lost by 3 points...yeah talk about getting punked

And nice touch adding the interception article. Clearly it hurt his team in a way they couldn't recover from since they ended up winning all 3 of those games...oh wait.

Turnovers happen. Montana threw his share of interceptions but he was lucky enough not to do it in the SB. Nobody is questioning how well he played in those games. How many did he throw in the playoffs? But that's right in this thread we pretend those other games don't happen so Joe has never made any mistakes.

Originally posted by midrdan:
I agree with you. The argument of who is "best ever" is subjective. So many variables. These guys played in different eras. I may think the 80s was harder for a team to win, you may think now is. The rules today and the philosophy of the game today inflate passing statistics, so comparing raw stats doesn't resolve the debate.

To me, it comes down to who would you pick needing a TD to win the game with the ball on the 20 and two minutes to go. Everything else being equal, I would choose Joe. If the rules are 1980s and the defense is the '86 Bears I would choose Joe. If the rules are today's and the defense is the '16 Texans I choose Joe. You may choose Brady. That's all good. To me, I think Joe still thrives today. But I don't know whether the QBs that play today, including Brady, could manage the rules and elite defenses back then. They have never had to deal with those issues.

See this is fine. That's your opinion and I certainly respect it and honestly I'm not sure I'd disagree though it's hard to predict how Joe would play in a bigger, stronger faster league without seeing it. We have seen Brady play in this league before the rules were completely turned around to help offenses.

What I don't get are the guys, like the one above who want to tailor things to whatever suits their argument. Oh Brady cheated but ignores all the stuff we're heard about the 49ers doing. Brady only won so much because he has longevity. Brady couldn't play in the 80s, etc...

Hypocritical arguments with nothing but what ifs and speculation with no proof or logic behind it.

Originally posted by Vegasodds101:
It always truly amazes me how much fans don't know. Majority of people think spygate is Patriots taping practices. There is zero evidence of Patriots filming anyone's practice, ever, no matter what Marshall Faulk thinks. Spygate was about Patriots having a camera on the sideline which was used to film opponents sidelines during game. The filming of Rams practice actually came from a Boston reporter who found out the Pats film crew were on the field during Rams practice and jumped to the conclusion they filmed it. He had to write a letter of apology a while later in the paper. Only one team has ever been caught filming a practice, the Broncos. McDaniels was the coach at the time so, like everything else conclusions were jumped to and Patriots were blamed as McDaniels was a former employee. Unfortunately for haters, McDaneiels had nothing to do with it and actually was the one who turned tape over to NFL.

Belichick taped opponents signals it's a fact. How much it helped us just pure speculation. This one thing I know, as soon as the NFL stopped it, the Patriots offense along with Brady broke almost every offensive record in the book and went undefeated in reg season. Kind of put and end to the filming being the reason for thier success for me.

Since deflategate Brady has been better with the supposedly properly inflated footballs. It's put the end to that argument for me too.

I would have no qualms discrediting achievements of Pats if they dropped off after these "gates", fact of the matter is they have been better after the fact. It's just hard to hold it against them when it had no effect, actually being better without.

Exactly. People are repeating these "gate" scandals and the Tuck Rule because they have no actual way to bash a team this successful and everyone hates winners.

Taping defensive signals was done by virtually every team in the league(including Tony Dungy who was the biggest crybaby about the Pats and I was glad to hear Ray Lewis call him out on it) the reason the Patriots were busted was because they kept doing it after the league office warned teams to not do it and they got busted.

It wasn't something that revealed the whole playbook to them. They would basically have to review those signals and try to identify patterns to get them an advantage in later games. Which certainly meant the other team could change the signals around and totally screw up those plans.

Not to mention exactly like you said...the Pats were busted for it and their offense set records. Of course it also happened to coincide with the Pats finally bringing in some offensive talent for Brady to work with but both of those things just show how ridiculous the idea that taping those signals was them cheating while other teams were all playing by the rules...I don't remember how many coaches came out saying they all did that and it wasn't a big deal at all.

Deflategate honestly was the biggest witch hunt in the history of the sport. I don't understand any 49ers fan who can support what the NFL and Roger Goodell did. You must not remember when we got stripped of draft picks for the Lance Briggs tampering? You know the Lance Briggs we didn't actually sign as a free agent? Do you guys recall how the Jets(Roger's former employer) were punished for tampering with Darrelle Revis(someone they actually signed after said tampering)? They got fined 250k or something like that. Nobody should be supporting a system where the commissioner can pick and choose how he punishes teams.

Tampering with game balls is a 250k fine. I believe it was the Vikings and maybe Tampa Bay who were both busted for doing this by national cameras which means there is indisputable proof that they were tampering with the balls. I think they may not have even been fined but received a verbal warning.

Pats were docked a first round pick, 4th round pick, bunch of people fined and Brady was suspended for 4 games even though the NFL and their dirty investigator could not find a single text, email anything from Brady actually saying he wanted the balls deflated beyond the legal limit. Asking for the ball to be at the low level of the LEGAL psi level is still legal. Should people start getting pulled over if the speed limit is 65 and they're cruising along doing 65 when a hill comes up and they hit 66?

An elementary school kid was able to prove weather conditions play a factor in PSI levels. The weather wasn't good in that game. The NFL wanted to bust the Pats and did so. If they were worried about the integrity of the game they would've checked the PSI levels of those footballs before the game, before they played a whole half of football with them.

And last but not least...they won 2 SBs and were a missed xp in the AFC Championship game from possibly winning another one since Deflategate.

Time to drop the excuses and appreciate how impressive that team and Brady have been.