Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Weren't the Falcons and Rams pretty bad teams back then? The Saints were pretty meh as well.

Originally posted by thl408:

Weren't the Falcons and Rams pretty bad teams back then? The Saints were pretty meh as well.

This is true....but also remember the NFC west was only a 4 team divison, so the niners had the other 10 games of the schedule based on a first place finish.

Each team had an era of being decent. Atlanta was decent early in Joe's career. Rams were pretty good 1984-1989 (2 title game aperances in '85 & '89) and NO was pretty good from '87-'92

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by thl408:

Weren't the Falcons and Rams pretty bad teams back then? The Saints were pretty meh as well.

This is true....but also remember the NFC west was only a 4 team divison, so the niners had the other 10 games of the schedule based on a first place finish.

Good point.

Originally posted by thl408:
Weren't the Falcons and Rams pretty bad teams back then? The Saints were pretty meh as well.

Yeah, the West was pretty weak back in the day, although one of the three would usually rise up and challenge before claiming 2nd place. The real challenge, specifically vs opposing defenses during that stretch came in the conference playoffs against Parcells' Giants, Ditka's Bears or Gibbs' Redskins.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by thl408:

Weren't the Falcons and Rams pretty bad teams back then? The Saints were pretty meh as well.

This is true....but also remember the NFC west was only a 4 team divison, so the niners had the other 10 games of the schedule based on a first place finish.

Good point.

A while a go I had a discussion on I think the ESPN forums and the guys was saying the niners dynasty was a product of the weak NFC west. I wish I could find the research I did, but I remember the niners had a much better winning % vs the NFC east (which was considered the strongest) then they did vs the west. It was a crazy number like a 78% win vs the east and a 66-67% vs the west.

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by Constantine:

Originally posted by 49erFan816:
Here's a question. You think the Niners would have won it all if Montana was the QB in the 92 playoffs ahead of Young?

Also we had a a bit a debate of which of Young's teams from 91-98 would beat Brady's teams from 01-now.

So. You think Montana's 87 and 90 49ers who were the favorites to win the SB but lost before getting there could beat Brady's 07 and 2011 Pats who lost in the super bowl to the inferior giants?

All Niners

I agree with this. I just believe that cap teams are gonna have a real hard time dealing with pre cap era teams. Cap started in 1993, but the real effects really weren't felt until 1996ish. I pick 1996, because you basically had two second year team Car & Jax make conference title games in their second year of existence. I do believe 1996-98 niners would be good games vs Toms Pats, however id take us. Within those 3 teams you had 2 dominate defenses (96 & 97) and our last championship quality offense (1998).

I agree too. I don't think many modern teams could compete with any of the juggernauts from the 80's. Nowadays it's just too hard to keep teams together because of the salary cap. Our team today is immensely talented, but every year we're forced to let talented players walk because of cap concerns. Or, hell, the Patriots won the Super Bowl, then proceed to let Darrelle Revis, Brandon Browner, Shane Vereen and Vince Wilfork all walk -- I bet every one of those players would've been retained if there weren't for cap consequences.

However, I don't think that makes Montana's Super Bowls more impressive. I think it all evens out. The salary cap era meant that Montana had to go up against other superteams (Giants, Redskins, Bears, etc), but it also meant he had a stronger supporting cast himself. The 49ers were basically the New York Yankees of football in the 80's (i.e. wild spenders).

I dont think they where wild spenders but knew where to spend money

Originally posted by Constantine:

I dont think they where wild spenders but knew where to spend money

They were very smart and usually let a guy go a year earlier as opposed to a year too late. Had there been a cap in the 80s there would have been no way to keep the depth we had. Free agency would have priced Young out as a QB, Taylor would have been first #1 WR money and we wouldn't have been able to afford 2 #1 WR under a salary cap.

On the other hand, one of my biggest "what ifs" concerning the niners is if they could've kept the 1994 team together. That team was poised for a run. They followed the super bowl with 11-5, 12-4, 13-3 & 12-4 seasons. I couldn't imagine how dominate the 95, 96 & 97 defense would have been had Deion been locked up to a multi year deal. Also, in my mind the 1995 was a lock title team with watters at HB even with trestman calling the plays.

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by thl408:
Weren't the Falcons and Rams pretty bad teams back then? The Saints were pretty meh as well.

This is true....but also remember the NFC west was only a 4 team divison, so the niners had the other 10 games of the schedule based on a first place finish.

Each team had an era of being decent. Atlanta was decent early in Joe's career. Rams were pretty good 1984-1989 (2 title game aperances in '85 & '89) and NO was pretty good from '87-'92

That's right. And, it pains me to do this, but I have to give credit to Lowell Cohen for pointing out in the mid '90's that the Niners record against their own division was actually not as good as it was against the rest of the NFL. The Rams were plus 10 wins I think 4 out of 5 years in the late 80's. The NFC West had three 10-6 teams in '88 - Niners, Rams and Saints. The Saints sent their entire linebacker group to the Pro Bowl more than once.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by theduke85:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
answer my question. How many games did you watch Joe Montana actually play?

What kind of pretentious question is this? I'm 28, I wasn't even sentient during the majority of his career. Do you think somehow makes your opinion better or more valid than mine?

EXACTLY my point. You haven't seen both qb's play. Trust me, that's the difference between your perspective and mine. Forget the effin stats. Joe had so many intangibles --- that's the wrong word for it btw -- intangibles makes it sound like you are referring to nonexistent things -- a better term would be non-quantifiables -- where was I -- oh yes joe had so many non-quantifiables you can't possibly compare.

BTW, I can see why you are defensive given the OP slant on this thread. But that's not my view. I am not putting brady down at all. Joe was simply unique among modern era qb's.

The only players you could compare him to are staubach and -- in a few years -- rodgers.

I'm not sure why asking how many Montana games you saw is "pretentious". It's a legitimate question and I think BrodieBlue is making a good point here. I've watched Brady throughout his career and I saw every single game Montana played. As is the case with BrodieBlue, I think Brady is a great QB - one of the greatest ever. But I just think Montana was a little better at playing the game. It's not just the stats. If you actually watched him play, it would probably go a long way to shape your opinion of him. He was simply a master and no, of course he wasn't a master all the time.

My suggestion for those who actually haven't watched a lot of Montana playing is to watch the NFL films 1984 Super Bowl recap. You see a lot of what the older guys will talk about. The guy was just cool, calm and collected. And, he was almost always having fun. In that NFL films piece, you him laughing as he runs down the sideline behind a Dolphins linebacker with his back turned running with a back. You see a long sequence where they focus on Montana's face as he's going through four or five reads and then deciding to come back to one of his earlier reads - it's in slow motion and Dolphin pass rushers are swinging at him and brushing him and he's just cool as a cucumber - never takes his eyes off down field. And, check out his receiving corps there. He's not playing with Rice and Taylor. He's playing with Clark and an aging Freddie Solomon.

Originally posted by theduke85:

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by Constantine:

Originally posted by 49erFan816:
Here's a question. You think the Niners would have won it all if Montana was the QB in the 92 playoffs ahead of Young?

Also we had a a bit a debate of which of Young's teams from 91-98 would beat Brady's teams from 01-now.

So. You think Montana's 87 and 90 49ers who were the favorites to win the SB but lost before getting there could beat Brady's 07 and 2011 Pats who lost in the super bowl to the inferior giants?

All Niners

I agree with this. I just believe that cap teams are gonna have a real hard time dealing with pre cap era teams. Cap started in 1993, but the real effects really weren't felt until 1996ish. I pick 1996, because you basically had two second year team Car & Jax make conference title games in their second year of existence. I do believe 1996-98 niners would be good games vs Toms Pats, however id take us. Within those 3 teams you had 2 dominate defenses (96 & 97) and our last championship quality offense (1998).

I agree too. I don't think many modern teams could compete with any of the juggernauts from the 80's. Nowadays it's just too hard to keep teams together because of the salary cap. Our team today is immensely talented, but every year we're forced to let talented players walk because of cap concerns. Or, hell, the Patriots won the Super Bowl, then proceed to let Darrelle Revis, Brandon Browner, Shane Vereen and Vince Wilfork all walk -- I bet every one of those players would've been retained if there weren't for cap consequences.

However, I don't think that makes Montana's Super Bowls more impressive. I think it all evens out. The salary cap era meant that Montana had to go up against other superteams (Giants, Redskins, Bears, etc), but it also meant he had a stronger supporting cast himself. The 49ers were basically the New York Yankees of football in the 80's (i.e. wild spenders).

I don't know man. I definitely think today's teams have more all around talent then the teams in the 80's.

I miss having the LA Lambs, ATL Falcoons and NO Aints in our division

Originally posted by crake49:

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by thl408:
Weren't the Falcons and Rams pretty bad teams back then? The Saints were pretty meh as well.

This is true....but also remember the NFC west was only a 4 team divison, so the niners had the other 10 games of the schedule based on a first place finish.

Each team had an era of being decent. Atlanta was decent early in Joe's career. Rams were pretty good 1984-1989 (2 title game aperances in '85 & '89) and NO was pretty good from '87-'92

That's right. And, it pains me to do this, but I have to give credit to Lowell Cohen for pointing out in the mid '90's that the Niners record against their own division was actually not as good as it was against the rest of the NFL. The Rams were plus 10 wins I think 4 out of 5 years in the late 80's. The NFC West had three 10-6 teams in '88 - Niners, Rams and Saints. The Saints sent their entire linebacker group to the Pro Bowl more than once.

I just looked up some of the records of the 80s and the division wasn't as bad as I thought. Especially in '88 like you mentioned. The Falcons were bad for most of the 80s though. Then it was always either the Rams or Saints that were more than decent each year. Perhaps it was the way the 49ers played them that made those other division teams look bad. I was a wee kid at the time so I'm not drawing from an adult memory.

Anyway, about Joe versus Tom, they both didn't play in the strongest of divisions but MIA, BUF, and NYJ is pretty soft of a division schedule save for the couple of seasons the Jets were good with Rex Ryan.

Originally posted by thl408:
I just looked up some of the records of the 80s and the division wasn't as bad as I thought. Especially in '88 like you mentioned. The Falcons were bad for most of the 80s though. Then it was always either the Rams or Saints that were more than decent each year. Perhaps it was the way the 49ers played them that made those other division teams look bad. I was a wee kid at the time so I'm not drawing from an adult memory.

Anyway, about Joe versus Tom, they both didn't play in the strongest of divisions but MIA, BUF, and NYJ is pretty soft of a division schedule save for the couple of seasons the Jets were good with Rex Ryan.

It was a common narrative back in the day from the east coast media as a way to minimize the continuing success of the Niners. It was an easy argument to make because there was no denying that the NFC East was the strongest division in the game but the truth was that the West wasn't that far behind. And that was why Cohen took the time to remind the nation that the Niners actually had more problems with NFC West teams than they did the rest of the league.

Originally posted by crake49:

Originally posted by thl408:

I just looked up some of the records of the 80s and the division wasn't as bad as I thought. Especially in '88 like you mentioned. The Falcons were bad for most of the 80s though. Then it was always either the Rams or Saints that were more than decent each year. Perhaps it was the way the 49ers played them that made those other division teams look bad. I was a wee kid at the time so I'm not drawing from an adult memory.

Anyway, about Joe versus Tom, they both didn't play in the strongest of divisions but MIA, BUF, and NYJ is pretty soft of a division schedule save for the couple of seasons the Jets were good with Rex Ryan.

It was a common narrative back in the day from the east coast media as a way to minimize the continuing success of the Niners. It was an easy argument to make because there was no denying that the NFC East was the strongest division in the game but the truth was that the West wasn't that far behind. And that was why Cohen took the time to remind the nation that the Niners actually had more problems with NFC West teams than they did the rest of the league.

I had mentioned earlier, I remembering breaking down the numbers and the niners won like 78% of their games vs the NFC east and like 66-67% of their games vs the NFC west in the 80s. Perhaps there was a chip on their shoulder playing the NFC east teams.