Joe Montana Legacy Secured

As for this specific discussion, I just think the way the game is played today great exaggerates the passing numbers. Also, Brady really didn't start putting up crazy numbers until 2007 when the Mike leach air-raid influences started to be seen in the NE offense.

I just think joe dominated in a much stronger era. Pre cap era teams were just stronger and the NFC in the 80s might be the strongest conference the league had ever seen. The lopsided SB scores kinda prove this. While the salary cap has succeeded in bring the top of the league and bottom of the league closer, it really has robbed the sport of truly great teams.

Originally posted by Niners816:

As for this specific discussion, I just think the way the game is played today great exaggerates the passing numbers. Also, Brady really didn't start putting up crazy numbers until 2007 when the Mike leach air-raid influences started to be seen in the NE offense.

I just think joe dominated in a much stronger era. Pre cap era teams were just stronger and the NFC in the 80s might be the strongest conference the league had ever seen. The lopsided SB scores kinda prove this. While the salary cap has succeeded in bring the top of the league and bottom of the league closer, it really has robbed the sport of truly great teams.

Agreed

Originally posted by buck:

I think this list illustrates exactly how much of a passing league the NFL has become. When Steve retired in 2000, he was first with Joe at number 2. Also it should be noted that Steve qb rating as just a niner was 101.4, he has done Tampa seasons dragging him down.

Originally posted by buck:

Man if A. Rodgers could win a couple more SB's he could go down as the top 2 or 3 greatest ever his numbers are sexy as hell lol heres another one.

NFL Career Pass Interception % Leaders
1. Aaron Rodgers (1.6%), 2. Tom Brady (2.0%), 3. Neil O'Donnell (2.1%), 4. Sam Bradford (2.2%), 4. Donovan McNabb (2.2%),

Originally posted by Niners816:

I think this list illustrates exactly how much of a passing league the NFL has become. When Steve retired in 2000, he was first with Joe at number 2. Also it should be noted that Steve qb rating as just a niner was 101.4, he has done Tampa seasons dragging him down.

I remember that... I wish S. Young a few more years but the head issues really killed us. In todays rules we couldve won another Bowl with him.

Originally posted by Niners816:
I just think joe dominated in a much stronger era. Pre cap era teams were just stronger and the NFC in the 80s might be the strongest conference the league had ever seen. The lopsided SB scores kinda prove this. While the salary cap has succeeded in bring the top of the league and bottom of the league closer, it really has robbed the sport of truly great teams.

I agree, but I think that's sort of a double-edged sword.

Sure, Montana had to go up against very good, even juggernaut teams in NFC -- teams better than anything Brady ever had to face. However, Montana's own teams were also stacked. It's not like this was David vs. Goliath, it was Goliath vs. Goliath. It was an even playing field. Maybe at the beginning of his career he was going up against better teams, but by the mid-late 80's Montana had some spectacular teams.

You point out of the lopsided Super Bowl scores (similarly, the NFC won 15 Super Bowls in the span of 16 years). If the NFC was so much better back then, doesn't that slightly diminish Joe's Super Bowl accolades? (i.e. beating up on inferior teams)

I just feel like people want to have their cake and it eat it too in that regard; the unbelievable strength of the NFC is used as an excuse for why he didn't make more than four Super Bowls. When people argue, "well, making the Super Bowl but losing it is better than losing earlier in the playoffs (4-2 record vs. 4-0 record)", Montana advocates usually reply with, "sure, Brady made six total, but you've got to understand, the NFC is extremely tough back then, with the Giants/Redskins/etc". However, if the NFC was really that much better, it kind of diminishes Super Bowl numbers -- you sort of have to take them with a grain of salt, if the NFC was really superior.

As an analogy, think about 2013. Remember after the season, when Richard Sherman came out and said something like, "the truth is, we knew that the NFCCG game was the Super Bowl," implying that the 49ers and Seahawks were clearly the two best teams in the league, and that the NFC was probably strong favorites for the Super Bowl. Seattle barely squeaked by San Francisco, but they obliterated the Broncos. Winning 23-17 against San Francisco is arguably more impressive than winning 43-8 against Denver, if you really believe that SF was the more formidable opponent.

I don't know. I love Joe, but I think people have a tendency to romanticize. He's a legend for sure, but I think Brady is as well.

By the way... completely agree that passing numbers need context. It is indeed significantly easier to put up huge/efficient numbers in today's game.

Originally posted by theduke85:

Originally posted by Niners816:
I just think joe dominated in a much stronger era. Pre cap era teams were just stronger and the NFC in the 80s might be the strongest conference the league had ever seen. The lopsided SB scores kinda prove this. While the salary cap has succeeded in bring the top of the league and bottom of the league closer, it really has robbed the sport of truly great teams.

I agree, but I think that's sort of a double-edged sword.

Sure, Montana had to go up against very good, even juggernaut teams in NFC -- teams better than anything Brady ever had to face. However, Montana's own teams were also stacked. It's not like this was David vs. Goliath, it was Goliath vs. Goliath. It was an even playing field. Maybe at the beginning of his career he was going up against better teams, but by the mid-late 80's Montana had some spectacular teams.

You point out of the lopsided Super Bowl scores (similarly, the NFC won 15 Super Bowls in the span of 16 years). If the NFC was so much better back then, doesn't that slightly diminish Joe's Super Bowl accolades? (i.e. beating up on inferior teams)

I just feel like people want to have their cake and it eat it too in that regard; the unbelievable strength of the NFC is used as an excuse for why he didn't make more than four Super Bowls. When people argue, "well, making the Super Bowl but losing it is better than losing earlier in the playoffs (4-2 record vs. 4-0 record)", Montana advocates usually reply with, "sure, Brady made six total, but you've got to understand, the NFC is extremely tough back then, with the Giants/Redskins/etc". However, if the NFC was really that much better, it kind of diminishes Super Bowl numbers -- you sort of have to take them with a grain of salt, if the NFC was really superior.

As an analogy, think about 2013. Remember after the season, when Richard Sherman came out and said something like, "the truth is, we knew that the NFCCG game was the Super Bowl," implying that the 49ers and Seahawks were clearly the two best teams in the league, and that the NFC was probably strong favorites for the Super Bowl. Seattle barely squeaked by San Francisco, but they obliterated the Broncos. Winning 23-17 against San Francisco is arguably more impressive than winning 43-8 against Denver, if you really believe that SF was the more formidable opponent.

I don't know. I love Joe, but I think people have a tendency to romanticize. He's a legend for sure, but I think Brady is as well.

By the way... completely agree that passing numbers need context. It is indeed significantly easier to put up huge/efficient numbers in today's game.

Not really, because whether or not the best teams are in one conference or not, you still have to beat those teams in the playoffs to get to the SB.

It was like Deon Sanders said in 94, the real super bowl was the NFCCG - it had been for years. Everyone knew that whoever won the NFCCG was gonna win the SB. Doesn't diminish the accomplishment - it just changes the order of when you play the weaker and tougher teams.

Originally posted by jonnydel:
Not really, because whether or not the best teams are in one conference or not, you still have to beat those teams in the playoffs to get to the SB.

It was like Deon Sanders said in 94, the real super bowl was the NFCCG - it had been for years. Everyone knew that whoever won the NFCCG was gonna win the SB. Doesn't diminish the accomplishment - it just changes the order of when you play the weaker and tougher teams.

Right. It's hard for me to understand the astounding lack of critical thinking that would lead one to believe that the dominance of the NFC in the 80's somehow diminishes Montana's accomplishments. If anything, it should enhance his reputation - he excelled in a very, very tough conference. In fact, it also demolishes the argument that Montana and the Niners should have won more Conference titles like the Patriots have. Most people would agree that the American conference during the Patriots' run hasn't been nearly as strong as the National Conference was during the Niners 80's run.

I hate to say this but there is no simple correct answer some questions.

Who is the best looking woman in the world?

Who is the best quarterback to ever play in the NFL?

Which God is the real God?

Who is the ugliest man in the world?

The answers to some questions are no more than opinions and opinions are not facts.

I am pretty sure that some members of the forum think that Steve Young was a better quarterback than Joe Montana.

Originally posted by crake49:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Not really, because whether or not the best teams are in one conference or not, you still have to beat those teams in the playoffs to get to the SB.

It was like Deon Sanders said in 94, the real super bowl was the NFCCG - it had been for years. Everyone knew that whoever won the NFCCG was gonna win the SB. Doesn't diminish the accomplishment - it just changes the order of when you play the weaker and tougher teams.

Right. It's hard for me to understand the astounding lack of critical thinking that would lead one to believe that the dominance of the NFC in the 80's somehow diminishes Montana's accomplishments. If anything, it should enhance his reputation - he excelled in a very, very tough conference. In fact, it also demolishes the argument that Montana and the Niners should have won more Conference titles like the Patriots have. Most people would agree that the American conference during the Patriots' run hasn't been nearly as strong as the National Conference was during the Niners 80's run.

From 1981 to 1994 (14 years) the niners made it to 9 conference title games. As we know they won 5 and lost 4. 1983 was the only one in which the NFC team lost the SB (was vs raiders). The NFC title games were defacto SBs.

Under joe it was 6 title games in 10 years and a 4-2 record. I just think in a weaker conference they might have went to 8 or so title games in 10 years and perhaps he would have won 5 or 6 Super Bowls.

I agree both are all timers, but I think joe is more accomplished and I know from a dynasty stand point the pats aren't even close.

Originally posted by crake49:
Right. It's hard for me to understand the astounding lack of critical thinking that would lead one to believe that the dominance of the NFC in the 80's somehow diminishes Montana's accomplishments. If anything, it should enhance his reputation - he excelled in a very, very tough conference. In fact, it also demolishes the argument that Montana and the Niners should have won more Conference titles like the Patriots have. Most people would agree that the American conference during the Patriots' run hasn't been nearly as strong as the National Conference was during the Niners 80's run.

"Astounding lack of common sense"? Wow, classy!

Look, let me be clear with what I'm saying here: everyone seems to agree that the best teams Joe Montana faced were in the NFC, right? That AFC was weaker. This is indisputable. The NFCCG was the "de facto" Super Bowl, just like Sanders said in '94, or Sherman was in '13. The opponents were stronger in the NFC.

What's more impressive: Kaepernick throwing for 3 TD / 0 INT / a 130 passer rating against the 2014 Seahawks, or Kaepernick throwing for 3 TD / 0 INT / 130 passer rating against the St. Louis Rams? Obviously it's against the Seahawks. The Seahawks are a superior team. Just like the Giants/Redskins/Bears were superior to AFC teams.

People cling to the fact that Montana was "perfect" in the Super Bowl (never lost, never threw a pick). Why do you think his numbers were so great in the Super Bowl? Do you think that he just had a magical aura that surrounding him in the Super Bowl? NO. Of course his numbers were better, he was playing lesser teams. (If it was a magical aura, did it just not activate in other playoff games, even though every playoff game is win-or-go-home?)

The fact is, when facing his mightiest opponents, he was anything but perfect. In the 1984 championship game against the Bears, he threw 1 TD / 2 INT / 60.0 passer rating; in the Super Bowl, he went for 3 TD / 0 INT / 127.2 passer rating. Do you think the Dolphins had a better defense than the Bears!?

In 1985 against the Giants, Montana for 0 TD / 1 INT / 65.6 passer rating (one-and-done).

In 1986 against the Giants, Montana went for 0 TD, 2 INT / 34.2 passer rating (a game he was knocked of; another one-and-done).

In 1987 against the Vikings, Montana went for 0 TD / 1 INT / 42.0 passer rating (he was benched for Steve Young midway through).

Montana was not perfect. He had bad games. The Super Bowl did not consist of his toughest opponents. When he played the truly tough teams, he was far for perfect. He had some great games (1988 NFCCG against the Bears, etc) and he also had some terrible games.

Let me ask you this: suppose the Redskins/Giants/Bears (hypothetically) played in the AFC. Surely, the 49ers would've made more Super Bowls, right? However, do you think if he was playing those teams in the Super Bowl that he still would've never thrown an interception? Do you think he still would've been undefeated in the big game? If the answer is "yes" to either question, then I've got a bridge to sell you. His perfection in the Super Bowl is romanticized. Yes, his accomplishments are mind-blowing and sensational, but given the fact that the NFC won 15 of 16 Super Bowls, I can't help but take the numbers with a little bit of a grain of salt. (See: Kaepernick vs. Rams / Kaepernick vs. Seahawks from second paragraph of this post.) It does not diminish the fact that he won the Super Bowls, however.

To me it boils down to this: both have four Super Bowls. Brady has a career .724 playoff win%, Montana is at .696. Brady has a career playoffs rating of 95.0, Brady is at 89.0 (and if we adjust for era, Montana's rating is probably closer to 100-105). Montana undoubtedly had a better supporting cast, because he played in an era where superteams could be assembled and held together. Both have a resume littered with unbelievable accomplishments. Most outside parties will tell you it's a coin flip.

Young's passer rating for the niners was 101.4. Montana's was 93.5.

Says something for the 49ers to have the greatest right handed QB ever and the greatest left handed QB ever and at one point for 5 years from 87-92 to play on the same team together.

Dynasty wise? The 49ers take the cake as from 81-98 they only had 1 losing season and averaged 10 wins a season in that span. They were prepared for life after Joe. Pats are not prepared for life after Brady it seems.

Originally posted by theduke85:
"Astounding lack of common sense"? Wow, classy!

Actually, I said it showed a lack of critical thinking, not common sense, and I stand by that. It was a harder road through the NFC back then. The NFC was the superior conference. But that doesn't automatically mean that the best team in the AFC wasn't strong competition in the Super Bowl. What it MAY mean is that the AFC team in a given Super Bowl didn't have to go through as tough a gauntlet to get there, that's all. The Bengals were favored in '81 and the Dolphins were favored in '84. The Dolphins that year had the league's #1 offense. Both times the Bengals were there, they had top 3 running attacks. The only games that the Niners were heavily favored were '89 against the Broncos and '94 against the Chargers.

And again, nobody ever gave the Niners a Super Bowl win with a face plant in the final seconds and the Niners never had to rely on their kicker to win the game in the closing seconds. The Niners won their games. Their opponents didn't lose their game for them.

And BTW, nobody is saying Montana never had a bad game. That's a straw man. Montana had some horrible games. Brady has had some horrible games. So what? What QB has never had a horrible game?

Joe was one of ours.

Brady played for some fat cheat on the east coast.

/endthread

Brady has an equal amount of rings, and he has been to TWO more Super Bowls. That is a lot more. He also has more PLAYOFF WINS than Montana. Joe had more offensive weapons as well. Brady is better. Sorry 9er homers.