Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by natediaz:

it's remarkable. pats really are something. they plugin dudes and they will perform. chris hogan? dude was just a dude. it really makes angry sometimes because i feel like what they are doing is impossible. they have a system of greatness. other players have to work extra harder because that's what's expected of them.

i thought my hawks would be the next big wave and would be the #1 team in this decade. i was at all time high when we beat the broncos. year after that i was still pumping my chest. we were on a roll, but a SB loss damaged us. brady crippled us. i don't even care about the butler catch. it was blowing the 10pt lead that took our defensive swag.

we are like a damaged good. we are like 5-6 special players away from getting back to where we were. and that's almost impossible. where da hell we get those 5-6 players? through draft? spend money?

i don't know how we are going to address our oline. i don't know how our dline not regress. it's really mindboggling to see how a team can sustain success like the pats do. i mean obviously we can't rebuild like you guys do. we have pretty good team. we got the best home field advantage. but we are not good enough to win the SB unless there's a major change in our roster.

this is why i'm in awe. pats are the greatest organization i've ever seen.

Stop trying to troll us. Yes new england now is way better than the york niners. Is that your point? Yea. We all know that.

Originally posted by LVJay:

"because at the end of the day winning is the most important stat."

BOOM! Caught you slipping, son!!

Yes, I totally agree... winning is the most important stat, NOT LOSING (definitely not losing two SUPER BOWLS).

# #

Are you serious with this? I was about to respond to your large post but with comments like this I'm not sure it's worth wasting my time.

I guess losing SBs counts more than losing earlier in the playoffs?

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by theduke85:
You're taking what I said too literally. I know you didn't argue the safety thing exactly -- it was just an example for illustration -- I'm just pointing out that saying "Brady played with 26 All-Pro teammates, Joe Montana only played with 13" is really flawed way of comparing an era with high roster turnover to an era with low roster turnover.

What is an era of high roster turnover? How do you define turnover? Are you counting ir? What does this mean?

You're right, it's a nebulous concept that is hard to define, but I'm not sure how you are disputing it. Teams are forced to give up great talent because of salary cap constraints. How do you quantify or define the 80s being a tougher, more physical era? I don't contest that, but that is also something that is difficult to quantify.

even though we are 49er fans and using objectivity, you get labeled a Brady or Pats supporter. no wonder why so many people think 49er fans are some of the least knowledgeable fans, you guys easily prove their point.

Originally posted by LVJay:

OH MY F***ING GOODNESS... next you'll be trying to convince us that Bitcoins are better than straight cash

You really think that? KC had a better season than Atlanta this year. I'd rather be Alex Smith than Matt Ryan. The Wizards had a better year than GS last year and Curry is a straight up bum now. I guess Lebron and Curry are both diminished since they split their finals. If only the Thunder won game 7 then Curry could still make a run as GOAT.

It's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard in my life. I'd rather come in 7th than 2nd. You know the difference between Jordan and Montana. Once breaking the ceiling Jordan really never fell short ever. The only thing that stopped him was retirement. They essentially won 6 straight rings with him excluding the year he came back mid way and not to his full abilities. Chicago didn't have more luster though because Pippen fell short in the playoffs instead of the Finals. If Chc lost to Houston it's not a slight on their dynasty.

I think Joe is above Brady but your guys reasoning meh. He only lost in the wild cards he never lost in the SB. Losing is losing.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

If brady's resume speaks for itself, why are you talking so much?

Winning doesn't always measure the true contributions of a player. I love the niners but I'm not a homer. There's a lot of GOATs who aren't niners and its easy to acknowledge that, right? Peyton brown hannah lt so many. Not a problem.

But the Brady debate is one where I don't go there. Except for durability I don't see his skill set putting him in the hyper elite category. Not just in regards to Joe but others as well. I just haven't felt like I'm watching a someone who's performing skills that we never see in others.I did feel that way when I saw Joe play, and a couple other qb's as well. SO, all the stats in the world -- although important -- don't counter that perception, for me.

Anyway I really hope thl and johnny del have some time to post real football analysis on this thread because the other back and forth -- all pros, different eras, steroids, yadda yadda -- really isn't going anywhere.

Brady has a lot more than wins and just because he's less athletic doesn't mean he doesn't do some very impressive things.

His longevity is unprecedented, this isn't some genetic freak either. We all saw this guys combine. He's worked for everything he's got.

I'm not sure what you think thl and Johnny would add to this conversation because what puts Brady above the competition is his total package. He's the definition of someone with limited physical ability building himself up with study of the game, work on his mechanics and extreme devotion to his craft.

He's had to deal with a ton of change over on his teams year to year, different offense styles and has won doing it every way possible.

I asked you this before and you chose to ignore the question and concentrate on the Seahawks fan. So I'll ask it again. What in your opinion gives Joe that "it" factor that Brady doesn't have?

The funny thing about this outside of being more mobile Joe had some of the same knocks on him about not being that impressive physically which is why he went in the 3rd round. He had an offense pretty muc tailor made for him and he never had to play in another scheme or worry about his roster being gutted year to year.

There are a ton of hypotheticals being thrown around here but none of them can be proven. We've never seen Joe play in today's NFL. However we have seen Brady play when the rules weren't so much in favor of the offense so the idea that he couldn't play in the 80s is BS.

Joe Montana is the best performer in the history of the SB but that's not the same thing as being the best QB ever. Sorry it was 1a and 1b before this past SB. Now the only people thinking its still Montana at the top are delusional 49er fans who can't appreciate what Brady has done.

Originally posted by genus49:
I asked you this before and you chose to ignore the question and concentrate on the Seahawks fan. So I'll ask it again. What in your opinion gives Joe that "it" factor that Brady doesn't have?

The funny thing about this outside of being more mobile Joe had some of the same knocks on him about not being that impressive physically which is why he went in the 3rd round. He had an offense pretty muc tailor made for him and he never had to play in another scheme or worry about his roster being gutted year to year.

Also, someone (perhaps even you) brought up an excellent point earlier in the topic: just because Joe was more athletic doesn't mean he was better. They cited an obvious example: Randy Moss versus Jerry Rice.

Rice lasted until 16th overall in the draft, in part because of his lackluster 40 time. Go and watch a Jerry Rice highlight type. His highlights are not eye-popping. 90% of his highlights are him having a defender beat and making an uncontested, nondescript catch for a huge gain. Contrast that to a Randy Moss highlight tape, where he is constantly doing otherwordly things -- leaping into the clouds to make a catch, blowing by entire defenders with his 4.20 speed, catching a ball 50 yards downfield, etc... (Of course, this is a 49ers board so people are going to take umbrage to this comment and romanticize Rice highlight tapes.)

No one in their right mind would hold this against Rice. Just because he wasn't "flashy" doesn't mean he wasn't a complete force to be reckoned with. The dude was a machine, a player that the league was absolutely terrified of. Rice is indisputably the best receiver in history (and, in my opinion, the best player in NFL history) but he sure as hell wasn't the most physically gifted.

Originally posted by theduke85:

Also, someone (perhaps even you) brought up an excellent point earlier in the topic: just because Joe was more athletic doesn't mean he was better. They cited an obvious example: Randy Moss versus Jerry Rice.

Rice lasted until 16th overall in the draft, in part because of his lackluster 40 time. Go and watch a Jerry Rice highlight type. His highlights are not eye-popping. 90% of his highlights are him having a defender beat and making an uncontested, nondescript catch for a huge gain. Contrast that to a Randy Moss highlight tape, where he is constantly doing otherwordly things -- leaping into the clouds to make a catch, blowing by entire defenders with his 4.20 speed, catching a ball 50 yards downfield, etc... (Of course, this is a 49ers board so people are going to take umbrage to this comment and romanticize Rice highlight tapes.)

No one in their right mind would hold this against Rice. Just because he wasn't "flashy" doesn't mean he wasn't a complete force to be reckoned with. The dude was a machine, a player that the league was absolutely terrified of. Rice is indisputably the best receiver in history (and, in my opinion, the best player in NFL history) but he sure as hell wasn't the most physically gifted.

Exactly. Not sure how many terrific athletes have to bust as the less athletic harder working guys go on to have great careers we have to see before people stop making these silly comments.

Originally posted by genus49:

Brady has a lot more than wins and just because he's less athletic doesn't mean he doesn't do some very impressive things.

His longevity is unprecedented, this isn't some genetic freak either. We all saw this guys combine. He's worked for everything he's got.

I'm not sure what you think thl and Johnny would add to this conversation because what puts Brady above the competition is his total package. He's the definition of someone with limited physical ability building himself up with study of the game, work on his mechanics and extreme devotion to his craft.

He's had to deal with a ton of change over on his teams year to year, different offense styles and has won doing it every way possible.

I asked you this before and you chose to ignore the question and concentrate on the Seahawks fan. So I'll ask it again. What in your opinion gives Joe that "it" factor that Brady doesn't have?

The funny thing about this outside of being more mobile Joe had some of the same knocks on him about not being that impressive physically which is why he went in the 3rd round. He had an offense pretty muc tailor made for him and he never had to play in another scheme or worry about his roster being gutted year to year.

There are a ton of hypotheticals being thrown around here but none of them can be proven. We've never seen Joe play in today's NFL. However we have seen Brady play when the rules weren't so much in favor of the offense so the idea that he couldn't play in the 80s is BS.

Joe Montana is the best performer in the history of the SB but that's not the same thing as being the best QB ever. Sorry it was 1a and 1b before this past SB. Now the only people thinking its still Montana at the top are delusional 49er fans who can't appreciate what Brady has done.

Or maybe its the brady fans who are delusional, who cant appreciate what joe has done?

A lot of brady fans -- not all -- actually havent seen Joe play. The opposite isnt true. Most Montana fans are Montana fans because they lived through his career.

I have no idea what your saying with Joe having a Tailor made system. That just makes no sense to me. Joe stepped into the wco and ran the system in a way very few other people could have done at that point in their career 18 months in.

Very much doubt Brady would have done an equally competent job at that point in his career running bill walshes wco.

He did it with a pretty average line, nondescript running backs, freddy solomon and dwight clark.

I dont think any quarterback year-and-a-half into his career could run through the progressions walsh built in to the system as efficiently and effectively as Joe did. One of the Hallmarks of the WcO that year was how many times the 49ers found themselves dealing with 2nd and four or three situations. Don't think I've ever seen a team be so consistently effective on first down in bringing high pressure short-yardage situations against d's.

This is where I'd really like tHL and Johnny Del to weigh in. I woulld really like them to cut up some plays that show the mental game in action for brady and montana. I think that would be really interesting helpful in educating people on both sides of the discussion.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Or maybe its the brady fans who are delusional, who cant appreciate what joe has done?

A lot of brady fans -- not all -- actually havent seen Joe play. The opposite isnt true. Most Montana fans are Montana fans because they lived through his career.

I have no idea what your saying with Joe having a Tailor made system. That just makes no sense to me. Joe stepped into the wco and ran the system in a way very few other people could have done at that point in their career 18 months in.

Very much doubt Brady would have done an equally competent job at that point in his career running bill walshes wco.

He did it with a pretty average line, nondescript running backs, freddy solomon and dwight clark.

I dont think any quarterback year-and-a-half into his career could run through the progressions welshfield Inn to the system as efficiently and effectively as Joe did. One of the Hallmarks of the WcO that year was how many times the 49ers found themselves dealing with 2nd and four or three situations. Don't think I've ever seen a team be so consistently effective on first down in bringing high pressure short-yardage situations against d's.

This is where I'd really like tHL and Johnny Del to weigh in. I woulld really like them to cut up some plays that show the mental game in action for brady and montana. I think that would be really interesting helpful in educating people on both sides of the discussion.

Great points they really cannot counter what you said. It's a Brady longer to win 4 than Montana. Plain and simple. Also Brady was a game manager for his first one he actually was not impressive at all. Montana has been impressive throughout his career Brady has not.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Or maybe its the brady fans who are delusional, who cant appreciate what joe has done?

A lot of brady fans -- not all -- actually havent seen Joe play. The opposite isnt true. Most Montana fans are Montana fans because they lived through his career.

I have no idea what your saying with Joe having a Tailor made system. That just makes no sense to me. Joe stepped into the wco and ran the system in a way very few other people could have done at that point in their career 18 months in.

Very much doubt Brady would have done an equally competent job at that point in his career running bill walshes wco.

He did it with a pretty average line, nondescript running backs, freddy solomon and dwight clark.

I dont think any quarterback year-and-a-half into his career could run through the progressions welshfield Inn to the system as efficiently and effectively as Joe did. One of the Hallmarks of the WcO that year was how many times the 49ers found themselves dealing with 2nd and four or three situations. Don't think I've ever seen a team be so consistently effective on first down in bringing high pressure short-yardage situations against d's.

This is where I'd really like tHL and Johnny Del to weigh in. I woulld really like them to cut up some plays that show the mental game in action for brady and montana. I think that would be really interesting helpful in educating people on both sides of the discussion.

Walsh drafted Joe because he was a perfect fit for the WCO. Pats lucked into Brady and he's had nobody like Walsh putting in a perfect system for him. He's had to adapt to a frequently changing offense.

I also think it's silly to insinuate that Brady doesn't have what it takes in the mental part of the game which is what I feel like you're insinuating with the film breakdown talk.

Once again you didn't mention what Brady doesn't have outside of mobility that Joe does.

Originally posted by elguapo:

Great points they really cannot counter what you said. It's a Brady longer to win 4 than Montana. Plain and simple. Also Brady was a game manager for his first one he actually was not impressive at all. Montana has been impressive throughout his career Brady has not.

Are you really that dense that you don't understand the difference in pre vs post salary cap era?

Brady had a terrible team on offense around him for his first one and it was in his first season as starter and second on the Pats. Joe won his first one in his 3rd season and 8 career starts under his best in the two seasons prior in a game we were favored in. Brady and the Pats were 14 point underdogs to the Rams in their first SB.

And Joe had like 10 more passing yards than Tom...yet Brady was the game manager while Joe was a stud right? Yeah what Brady did wasn't impressive at all...

Brady hasn't been impressive his whole career? He led the league in TD passes his second season starting and that was before all these rule changes in favor of the offense. And he did this with mediocre at best talent on offense. We saw what happened once the Pats realized that they should get him some decent weapons.

Originally posted by genus49:

Walsh drafted Joe because he was a perfect fit for the WCO. Pats lucked into Brady and he's had nobody like Walsh putting in a perfect system for him. He's had to adapt to a frequently changing offense.

I also think it's silly to insinuate that Brady doesn't have what it takes in the mental part of the game which is what I feel like you're insinuating with the film breakdown talk.

Once again you didn't mention what Brady doesn't have outside of mobility that Joe does.

Well, im saying that i dont think brady 18 months into his career would have done as good a job with the post snap progressions as joe. In fact no other qb of that era would have.

I dont get what your saying about a tailor made system for joe. That bizarre. Walsh started building the wco concepts about the time Joe was 5 years old.

He drafted Joe because he thought he had some qualities that might work out. But no one could have anticipated how successful he would be in that system.

In fact Joe brought the system to another level of efficiency then it had enjoyed previously under different quarterbacks on different teams. It was Joe that made the wco a household name --his execution of it.

I don't think a lot of Brady fans truly appreciate that in hindsight. That's something that gets completely lost in the stats.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Well, im saying that i dont think brady 18 months into his career would have done as good a job with the post snap progressions as joe. In fact no other qb of that era would have.

I dont get what your saying about a tailor made system for joe. That bizarre. Walsh started building the wco concepts about the time Joe was 5 years old.

He drafted Joe because he thought he had some qualities that might work out. But no one could have anticipated how successful he would be in that system.

In fact Joe brought the system to another level of efficiency then it had enjoyed previously under different quarterbacks on different teams. It was Joe that made the wco a household name --his execution of it.

I don't think a lot of Brady fans truly appreciate that in hindsight. That's something that gets completely lost in the stats.

You really don't understand what I'm saying or just refuse to?

Bill Walsh made the WCO what it is. He drafted Joe Montana because he thought his strengths played well into what he wanted to do. Joe did just that. The offense was tailor made for him. How are you going to argue against that?

You comment about how nobody else could get those concepts outside of Joe is pure hypothetical. You can't prove that and have no way of knowing that to be true. Tom Brady's strength has always been his mind. Not sure why you think he'd struggle to pick up the system just like Joe did.

Your point is contradictory too. If Joe made WCO what it was and nobody else could figure it out like he has then why has it become so popular with multiple coaches, QBs and teams running it or building upon it?

No i dont see it that way. Walsh architected a great scheme and joe made it win super bowls. Kenny anderson and steve deberg ran the wco. We dont talk about them too much.

I dont see the contradiction in what im saying. Because joe ran it best doesnt mean others dont run it too. I dont get you.


Anyway youre trying real hard to minimize joes contributions. Im assuming he owes you money or something.