Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by 9moon:

NOT the 95 Packers... that wasn't even a CHAMPIONSHIP..

I'm talking about the year Green Bay Packer team that lost to Denver in the Super Bowl.. the year we had Woodson, Kevin Greene and lost to the Packers at home..No way Joe Montana would have lost to Green Bay.. He just wont..

So Joe was gonna stay an additional 3 years in this scenario? He retires after the 94 season....you have him staying through the 1997 season.

Originally posted by LVJay:

He didn't have to back then. Officials let DBs hold, drape all over WRs, hit hard and spear motherf**kers back then. Officials didn't nurse QBs like an infant being breast fed back then. The game wasn't all about babying QBs like these days in a pass happy ass league.

Montana would have murdered defenses if he was gifted the soft ass rules they have for QBs / offenses THESE DAYS.

He didn't have to because we had a top 5 d who could do those things and shut opposing qb's down. In a d friendly league. Today Montana would have to outduel say Marino because he would of pound the sh out of our d with today's rules. So does he win a shoot out vs Dan every time? I think not.

I think it's ridiculous that people think Tom who has only been hurt 1 time in his career would all the sudden shrivel up and die in the 80's. Plenty of qb's lasted in the 80's. Dan had 9 straight years without missing a game. Qb's took more punishment and got hurt more often but not to the extreme levels you guys exaggerate.

Lastly Tom won 3 SB's playing game manager, relying on the d. Before alot of the softer rules set in. Enough with the fantasies he can't do that.

Originally posted by tjd808185:
He didn't have to because we had a top 5 d who could do those things and shut opposing qb's down. In a d friendly league. Today Montana would have to outduel say Marino because he would of pound the sh out of our d with today's rules. So does he win a shoot out vs Dan every time? I think not.

I think it's ridiculous that people think Tom who has only been hurt 1 time in his career would all the sudden shrivel up and die in the 80's. Plenty of qb's lasted in the 80's. Dan had 9 straight years without missing a game. Joe is smaller, moves around more and got hurt often.

Elway had the No1 D so...

Marino had the No7 D.

This is all largely pointless and highlights the reason why the comparison is full of guess work. Nobody has the answer because there isn't one.

Coaching, supporting cast matters. It mattered for Joe, and it matters for Brady now. Let's put Bill and Brady back in the 80's. Bill won 2 SB's as dc does anyone really think Brady couldn't win with Bill back then? Seriously.

Originally posted by babarvaart:

Elway had the No1 D so...

Marino had the No7 D.

This is all largely pointless and highlights the reason why the comparison is full of guess work. Nobody has the answer because there isn't one.

And they scored 10 points each. So our o manhandled them but defensively we outmatched them. Today typically it's o v o.

Originally posted by tjd808185:
And they scored 10 points each. So our o manhandled them but defensively we outmatched them. Today typically it's o v o.

Seahawks won with a bad ass D. So did Denver.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this but my main point of difference with now and then is that now QBs can play to a higher level for longer as they get more protection from the rules. So it stands to reason a really good one will be around longer to win more SBs.

99 is right. IF Montana was healthy and he had walsh as his coach in today's NFL, they would more likely win more than Brady. But you have to give it up to Brady because he remained healthy for 20 years. That's unheard of.

But consider this, Montana won with great wide receivers. Brady won average wide receivers by comparison.

Originally posted by pdizo916:
99 is right. IF Montana was healthy and he had walsh as his coach in today's NFL, they would more likely win more than Brady. But you have to give it up to Brady because he remained healthy for 20 years. That's unheard of.

You mean when defenders aren't allowed to breath on Brady. At the end of the day, Brady did more. On top of that, he did more with less. Just need to tip the cap to him. For me, I liked Brady in his first 2 superbowls because he was the underdog. What turned me off to him was when he started complaining more and acted a little more entitled when it came to the outcome of plays.

Montana's demeanor was just so calm, even when things did not work well for him or there were bad calls. That is why I would take him over Brady any day. Brady turned into a Dan Marino type complainer as he became more successful.

Originally posted by goldlame2013:
But consider this, Montana won with great wide receivers. Brady won average wide receivers by comparison.

in 81 & 84 ?

Clark was good but the rest were avg.

Originally posted by babarvaart:

Seahawks won with a bad ass D. So did Denver.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this but my main point of difference with now and then is that now QBs can play to a higher level for longer as they get more protection from the rules. So it stands to reason a really good one will be around longer to win more SBs.

You're right d can still win but things are more skewed to o. Brady has thrown for 1309 yards in the last 3 SB's. That's God like in any other time period but today's no contact league.

Originally posted by goldlame2013:

But consider this, Montana won with great wide receivers. Brady won average wide receivers by comparison.

Montana won his first two super bowls without rice and taylor

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by 9moon:

NOT the 95 Packers... that wasn't even a CHAMPIONSHIP..

I'm talking about the year Green Bay Packer team that lost to Denver in the Super Bowl.. the year we had Woodson, Kevin Greene and lost to the Packers at home..No way Joe Montana would have lost to Green Bay.. He just wont..

So Joe was gonna stay an additional 3 years in this scenario? He retires after the 94 season....you have him staying through the 1997 season.

Why stop there? I say he plays through the 1999 season and easily dodges aeneas williams on that blitz, we go 12-4 and win it all and the rams never get a ring

How many titles do Bill and Brady win without losing players to free agency/ salary cap like Joe and Bill benefitted from? Imagine if they still had Chandler Jones and his 17 sacks.

Every single era has it's own challenges and obstacles. Brady has it easier throwing the ball but he's also working with less talent and to win there's more individually on him.

I still give Joe a slight edge because 80's shortened his career and I think he could of 6 if he played as long as Brady but it's close.

Originally posted by pdizo916:

99 is right. IF Montana was healthy and he had walsh as his coach in today's NFL, they would more likely win more than Brady. But you have to give it up to Brady because he remained healthy for 20 years. That's unheard of.

He wouldnt have lasted anywhere near that long under the rules Montana played. But kudos to the both of them. I just wished Brady showed a little more class on occasions.