Joe Montana Legacy Secured

you can say we bought a super bowl in 94 ,. tried to do the same for the next few years by bringing in high priced guys like kevin greene and rod woodson which never worked out. of course the failure of the team to address the running back thing was unforgiveable. to bad we could have not won the super bowl in 98 for haley who came back to us and could still create some consternation

Originally posted by valrod33:

With the salary cap there is no way any team will come close to duplicating this which makes what they have done even that more amazing. You think any QB will constantly take less than what he is worth so they can build a better team around him?

I just don't know....the salary cap was suppose to prevent anyone from matching our run and here we are. They matched our titles, exceeded our conference titles and are one season short on the 10+ win seasons. You get an all time Qb coupled with an all time HC and it results in these types of runs. The longevity of QBs now seem to make the sheer numbers on theses streaks ridiculous.

Originally posted by Niners816:
I just don't know....the salary cap was suppose to prevent anyone from matching our run and here we are. They matched our titles, exceeded our conference titles and are one season short on the 10+ win seasons. You get an all time Qb coupled with an all time HC and it results in these types of runs. The longevity of QBs now seem to make the sheer numbers on theses streaks ridiculous.

they have exceeded us but its fine.had eddie not got in trouble had bill not quit. had we traded steve and not joe. had haley been able to play with harris. had garrison not got hurt. had we not got jobbed vs the red skins. etc etc. oh well

Originally posted by JTsBiggestFan:

Originally posted by BudValentino:

The only thing we can hang our hat on is that the path to our super bowls were much more difficult. The 49ers ,The Redskins, Bears, and Giants were all favored to win the super bowl at one time or another, during our 4 super bowl wins in the 80's. The Reggie White Eagles weren't chop liver either. New England's only competition has been the Colts, Ravens and Steelers with New England favored to win the super bowl every year. The 90's we had to battle great Cowboy teams and oh yeah, Green Bay Packers.
If the 49ers had played the Caliber of teams the Patriots played, we'd have 6 or 7 Super Bowls. Not to take anything away from the Patriots success, but the 49ers had to really battle all time great teams to reach their success.

Originally posted by jcs:

Think of how many different teams they've won it with. With fa and the salary cap they've won what was expected to be nearly impossible.

For a 4 year period, the loser of the NFC Championship Game went on to play/win the Super Bowl (with one exception):

1983 - Redskins beat 49ers
1984 - 49ers beat Bears
1985 - Bears beat *Giants (*divisional round not NFCC)
1986 - Giants beat Redskins
1987 - Redskins beat Vikings

So basically, those teams were just right there and after losing the NFCC (or divisional round for NYG), came back and won it all the next year.

The 1984 49ers shut out the Bears 23-0 in the NFCC, which led to the juggernaut 1985 Bears that smashed teams.

The 1985 Bears shut out the Giants and Rams by a combined score of 45-0, then smashed the Patsies 46-10 in the Bowl.

The 1986 Giants went on a tear crushing our Niners 49-3, then shutting out the Redskins 17-0 before beating the Donkies 39-20.

The 1987 Redskins one two close playoff games before whipping the Donkies 42-10.

So the Niners winning 4 out of 10 in this decade was incredible in hindsight. Basically won 4 because of Joe Montana's greatness.....otherwise would have been a 2 or 3 SB win max.

BTW, the '80s were a decade of a QB having to take on another team not another QB.

Montana crushed the likes of Marino & Elway in Super Bowl contests, but had two nail biters against Ken Anderson and Boomer Esiason's Bengals.

The rest of the NFC winners in that decade featured QBs who have not and will not be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Meanwhile the AFC has Marino, Elway, Kelly, in the HoF with Dan Fouts as well for a non SB participant.

I can't think of another HoF QB in the entire NFC outside of Montana which goes to show the tremendous battles he had to face.

Just think of Jim Kelly, whose only peer as a QB would be Troy Aikman..........Jeff Hostetler & Mark Rypien are game managers at best. Kelly was 0-4 in the big game and is in the HoF.

Meanwhile in the '00s and '10s, you have Brady winning SBs merely because he's a better QB than most of the AFC and every NFC QB he's battled.....and barely beating them.

These Jags & Vikings teams would be legit SB teams had they been around 10-15+ years at least........definitely back in '80s and '90s. Brady beats the Jags by 4 at home where he's vastly superior a QB to Bortles.........definite loss many years ago.

The years teams bring a ferocious D with competent QB play he's lost........a few Ravens and Broncos teams come to mind, along with NYG. Mostly QBs lesser than Brady with the lone exception of Peyton Manning on Denver & Indy....but only when those teams were outright better than his team.

Also consider that the 49ers could not get past the Giants in 1990 NFCC primarily because their running game with Craig dropped off enough that the Giants could contain him in nickel/dime the entire game. An in prime Rice, Taylor, Jones blow away anything Brady played with and yet it wasn't enough to do much versus NYG. You needed an RB to ball back then.....couldn't just throw it 50-60 times against a great defense and win. Steve Young is a one time champion because he barely had a great RB outside of Watters & Hearst.

It's a debate that can be spun many different ways. I've always been ok with saying "Montana best of the '80s", "Brady best of the '00s/10s".......Brady might have been very good in the '80s and Montana for sure in the modern game.

On a different but final note:

I like to compare QBs qualitatively.........beyond SB rings. After all, we acknowledge Marino as a f'n beast QB , probably GOAT who never won a chip. Maybe not better than Montana or Brady or maybe Peyton but sure as hell better than most of the 30-40+ QBs with rings.

So why is Brady and Montana all about 5 wins vs 4 wins or 2 losses vs. 0 losses....?

On pure eye test/skill:

Montana can improvise out of pocket better.
Montana superior mobility by far (3rd all time rusher in SB game behind McNair & Kap....5/59 yards against Dolphins!).
Montana better footwork/drop back.
Montana never used shotgun (neither did Young).

Give it a tie for intangible/clutch.
Give it a tie for reading defenses, calling audibles, etc. .
Give it a general tie for throwing the football.

Give Brady an edge for being a little bit taller. (LOL)

Serious question:

What does Brady do now or before that is better than Montana, skill wise?

There are people who have very serious debates saying Young was better than Montana (and it has to be respected), but then turn around and say Brady is better than Montana in the next breath.

Wish we could discuss skills more often. More intellectually satisfying!

Defenses were never as complex as they are today. Brady is the best pre snap QB of all time, Montana was great but he wasn't figuring out teams in that way. Usually his teams were dominate. Brady is doing this with guys like amendola

Originally posted by cciowa:

Originally posted by Niners816:

I just don't know....the salary cap was suppose to prevent anyone from matching our run and here we are. They matched our titles, exceeded our conference titles and are one season short on the 10+ win seasons. You get an all time Qb coupled with an all time HC and it results in these types of runs. The longevity of QBs now seem to make the sheer numbers on theses streaks ridiculous.

they have exceeded us but its fine.had eddie not got in trouble had bill not quit. had we traded steve and not joe. had haley been able to play with harris. had garrison not got hurt. had we not got jobbed vs the red skins. etc etc. oh well

In retrospect, I wish George would have rode off into the sunset after SB29 and Mike Shanahan would have then been HC. IMO, the 95-98 teams got outcoached in big games and if they would have had a guy like Mike as HC I bet we'd have won at least one more title.

Originally posted by Niners816:
In retrospect, I wish George would have rode off into the sunset after SB29 and Mike Shanahan would have then been HC. IMO, the 95-98 teams got outcoached in big games and if they would have had a guy like Mike as HC I bet we'd have won at least one more title.

agree ten fold. he would not have ignored the run game. it was a disgrace and led to the early end of his career that young was our best runner till terry kirby arrived. f**king adam walker

Originally posted by ChazBoner:
Brady has done it year after year with scrub WRs

Actually, Brady's been throwing and catching for himself. And blocking too. He's blocking throwing and catching. And I forgot calling plays. He is calling plays, blocking, throwing, and catching for himself. It's incredible. He is the best football player of all time, in any era, at any position.

Originally posted by ChazBoner:
Brady has done it year after year with scrub WRs

Yup, in a league where there's diapers on the QB, especially on Brady and on the Patriots. A league where the rules are tailor-made for the QB to have inflated numbers and longevity, where PI calls have become so game-changing and so ridiculous that OC's are actually scheming for those calls to bail them out, or are used to favor one team over another (see last night's AFC game). A league where the rules have so handcuffed the defense from playing tough, hard defenses that even the top defense have hard times beating even middle-of-road offenses, much less the top offenses (again, see last night's AFC game).

Joe Montana would still be playing today for his 10th SB if he started playing under the rules Brady plays under. I don't care what anyone says, Tom Brady could've never played in Joe's time and would be an average QB at best. Tom Brady IS NOT the GOAT, and I will not call him that because Tom is playing in a league setup for the offense, and specifically the QB, to be successful.

Deal with it

Originally posted by ChazBoner:
Brady has done it year after year with scrub WRs

yeah but in the long run,one thing you cannot deny is..

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

Originally posted by ChazBoner:

Brady has done it year after year with scrub WRs

Yup, in a league where there's diapers on the QB, especially on Brady and on the Patriots. A league where the rules are tailor-made for the QB to have inflated numbers and longevity, where PI calls have become so game-changing and so ridiculous that OC's are actually scheming for those calls to bail them out, or are used to favor one team over another (see last night's AFC game). A league where the rules have so handcuffed the defense from playing tough, hard defenses that even the top defense have hard times beating even middle-of-road offenses, much less the top offenses (again, see last night's AFC game).

Joe Montana would still be playing today for his 10th SB if he started playing under the rules Brady plays under. I don't care what anyone says, Tom Brady could've never played in Joe's time and would be an average QB at best. Tom Brady IS NOT the GOAT, and I will not call him that because Tom is playing in a league setup for the offense, and specifically the QB, to be successful.

Brady is the 🐐 sorry...

Time to move on from the glory years and come to terms with reality about what we are today.

Originally posted by JTsBiggestFan:
For a 4 year period, the loser of the NFC Championship Game went on to play/win the Super Bowl (with one exception):

1983 - Redskins beat 49ers
1984 - 49ers beat Bears
1985 - Bears beat *Giants (*divisional round not NFCC)
1986 - Giants beat Redskins
1987 - Redskins beat Vikings

So basically, those teams were just right there and after losing the NFCC (or divisional round for NYG), came back and won it all the next year.

The 1984 49ers shut out the Bears 23-0 in the NFCC, which led to the juggernaut 1985 Bears that smashed teams.

The 1985 Bears shut out the Giants and Rams by a combined score of 45-0, then smashed the Patsies 46-10 in the Bowl.

The 1986 Giants went on a tear crushing our Niners 49-3, then shutting out the Redskins 17-0 before beating the Donkies 39-20.

The 1987 Redskins one two close playoff games before whipping the Donkies 42-10.

So the Niners winning 4 out of 10 in this decade was incredible in hindsight. Basically won 4 because of Joe Montana's greatness.....otherwise would have been a 2 or 3 SB win max.

BTW, the '80s were a decade of a QB having to take on another team not another QB.

Montana crushed the likes of Marino & Elway in Super Bowl contests, but had two nail biters against Ken Anderson and Boomer Esiason's Bengals.

The rest of the NFC winners in that decade featured QBs who have not and will not be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Meanwhile the AFC has Marino, Elway, Kelly, in the HoF with Dan Fouts as well for a non SB participant.

I can't think of another HoF QB in the entire NFC outside of Montana which goes to show the tremendous battles he had to face.

Just think of Jim Kelly, whose only peer as a QB would be Troy Aikman..........Jeff Hostetler & Mark Rypien are game managers at best. Kelly was 0-4 in the big game and is in the HoF.

Meanwhile in the '00s and '10s, you have Brady winning SBs merely because he's a better QB than most of the AFC and every NFC QB he's battled.....and barely beating them.

These Jags & Vikings teams would be legit SB teams had they been around 10-15+ years at least........definitely back in '80s and '90s. Brady beats the Jags by 4 at home where he's vastly superior a QB to Bortles.........definite loss many years ago.

The years teams bring a ferocious D with competent QB play he's lost........a few Ravens and Broncos teams come to mind, along with NYG. Mostly QBs lesser than Brady with the lone exception of Peyton Manning on Denver & Indy....but only when those teams were outright better than his team.

Also consider that the 49ers could not get past the Giants in 1990 NFCC primarily because their running game with Craig dropped off enough that the Giants could contain him in nickel/dime the entire game. An in prime Rice, Taylor, Jones blow away anything Brady played with and yet it wasn't enough to do much versus NYG. You needed an RB to ball back then.....couldn't just throw it 50-60 times against a great defense and win. Steve Young is a one time champion because he barely had a great RB outside of Watters & Hearst.

It's a debate that can be spun many different ways. I've always been ok with saying "Montana best of the '80s", "Brady best of the '00s/10s".......Brady might have been very good in the '80s and Montana for sure in the modern game.

On a different but final note:

I like to compare QBs qualitatively.........beyond SB rings. After all, we acknowledge Marino as a f'n beast QB , probably GOAT who never won a chip. Maybe not better than Montana or Brady or maybe Peyton but sure as hell better than most of the 30-40+ QBs with rings.

So why is Brady and Montana all about 5 wins vs 4 wins or 2 losses vs. 0 losses....?

On pure eye test/skill:

Montana can improvise out of pocket better.
Montana superior mobility by far (3rd all time rusher in SB game behind McNair & Kap....5/59 yards against Dolphins!).
Montana better footwork/drop back.
Montana never used shotgun (neither did Young).

Give it a tie for intangible/clutch.
Give it a tie for reading defenses, calling audibles, etc. .
Give it a general tie for throwing the football.

Give Brady an edge for being a little bit taller. (LOL)

Serious question:

What does Brady do now or before that is better than Montana, skill wise?

There are people who have very serious debates saying Young was better than Montana (and it has to be respected), but then turn around and say Brady is better than Montana in the next breath.

Wish we could discuss skills more often. More intellectually satisfying!

Hey JT, just stop trying Bro. Way too many fans here are too firmly seated in the Brady Train to understand that logic. Let them tell it Brady plays in tougher times than Joe played

Originally posted by ChazBoner:
Brady has done it year after year with scrub WRs

8 SB appearances for a starting QB is ridiculous, about to get his 6th ring

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

Originally posted by JTsBiggestFan:

For a 4 year period, the loser of the NFC Championship Game went on to play/win the Super Bowl (with one exception):

1983 - Redskins beat 49ers
1984 - 49ers beat Bears
1985 - Bears beat *Giants (*divisional round not NFCC)
1986 - Giants beat Redskins
1987 - Redskins beat Vikings

So basically, those teams were just right there and after losing the NFCC (or divisional round for NYG), came back and won it all the next year.

The 1984 49ers shut out the Bears 23-0 in the NFCC, which led to the juggernaut 1985 Bears that smashed teams.

The 1985 Bears shut out the Giants and Rams by a combined score of 45-0, then smashed the Patsies 46-10 in the Bowl.

The 1986 Giants went on a tear crushing our Niners 49-3, then shutting out the Redskins 17-0 before beating the Donkies 39-20.

The 1987 Redskins one two close playoff games before whipping the Donkies 42-10.

So the Niners winning 4 out of 10 in this decade was incredible in hindsight. Basically won 4 because of Joe Montana's greatness.....otherwise would have been a 2 or 3 SB win max.

BTW, the '80s were a decade of a QB having to take on another team not another QB.

Montana crushed the likes of Marino & Elway in Super Bowl contests, but had two nail biters against Ken Anderson and Boomer Esiason's Bengals.

The rest of the NFC winners in that decade featured QBs who have not and will not be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Meanwhile the AFC has Marino, Elway, Kelly, in the HoF with Dan Fouts as well for a non SB participant.

I can't think of another HoF QB in the entire NFC outside of Montana which goes to show the tremendous battles he had to face.

Just think of Jim Kelly, whose only peer as a QB would be Troy Aikman..........Jeff Hostetler & Mark Rypien are game managers at best. Kelly was 0-4 in the big game and is in the HoF.

Meanwhile in the '00s and '10s, you have Brady winning SBs merely because he's a better QB than most of the AFC and every NFC QB he's battled.....and barely beating them.

These Jags & Vikings teams would be legit SB teams had they been around 10-15+ years at least........definitely back in '80s and '90s. Brady beats the Jags by 4 at home where he's vastly superior a QB to Bortles.........definite loss many years ago.

The years teams bring a ferocious D with competent QB play he's lost........a few Ravens and Broncos teams come to mind, along with NYG. Mostly QBs lesser than Brady with the lone exception of Peyton Manning on Denver & Indy....but only when those teams were outright better than his team.

Also consider that the 49ers could not get past the Giants in 1990 NFCC primarily because their running game with Craig dropped off enough that the Giants could contain him in nickel/dime the entire game. An in prime Rice, Taylor, Jones blow away anything Brady played with and yet it wasn't enough to do much versus NYG. You needed an RB to ball back then.....couldn't just throw it 50-60 times against a great defense and win. Steve Young is a one time champion because he barely had a great RB outside of Watters & Hearst.

It's a debate that can be spun many different ways. I've always been ok with saying "Montana best of the '80s", "Brady best of the '00s/10s".......Brady might have been very good in the '80s and Montana for sure in the modern game.

On a different but final note:

I like to compare QBs qualitatively.........beyond SB rings. After all, we acknowledge Marino as a f'n beast QB , probably GOAT who never won a chip. Maybe not better than Montana or Brady or maybe Peyton but sure as hell better than most of the 30-40+ QBs with rings.

So why is Brady and Montana all about 5 wins vs 4 wins or 2 losses vs. 0 losses....?

On pure eye test/skill:

Montana can improvise out of pocket better.
Montana superior mobility by far (3rd all time rusher in SB game behind McNair & Kap....5/59 yards against Dolphins!).
Montana better footwork/drop back.
Montana never used shotgun (neither did Young).

Give it a tie for intangible/clutch.
Give it a tie for reading defenses, calling audibles, etc. .
Give it a general tie for throwing the football.

Give Brady an edge for being a little bit taller. (LOL)

Serious question:

What does Brady do now or before that is better than Montana, skill wise?

There are people who have very serious debates saying Young was better than Montana (and it has to be respected), but then turn around and say Brady is better than Montana in the next breath.

Wish we could discuss skills more often. More intellectually satisfying!

Hey JT, just stop trying Bro. Way too many fans here are too firmly seated in the Brady Train to understand that logic. Let them tell it Brady plays in tougher times than Joe played

NFL in 94 wasn't leaps and bounds different than the league in 00. Joe also played with an advantage of being in a superior WCO system that the league had to adjust to for most of his career.