Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by TB12:

Originally posted by English:
I dont know what Broncos fans you have been talking to, but Terrell Davis says hi.

I'm talking 80s bro, you know, when Montana faced Elway in the Super Bowl?

That was actually 1990

Originally posted by Niners816:

Let's talk about playoff competition.....in 1988 and 1989 the Niners played 6 playoff games. Of those 6, they play 4 games that was against the either the number 1 defense in yards or the 1 defense in points. In those 4 games they averaged 39.5 points per game.

1988 vs Min (#1 yards) scores 34
1988 vs ChI (#1 Points) scores 28
1989 vs Min (#1 yards) scores 41
1989 vs Den (#1 Points) scores 55

I think he made up for his 1987 Minnesota performance. Also in 3 of his 4 Super Bowls he beat a team that was either the #1 offense (84 Mia, 88 cincy) or #1 defense (89 Denver).

Brady beat teams and QBs that already won super bowls like the 2001 Rams (Greatest Show on Turf, which won in 99') and the Legion of Boom (won in 2013). None of those teams ou cited won a super bowl, other than the Bears in 86' and by the time 88' rolled around they were not nearly the same team. It's only a matter of time before Brady doubles the number of post season wins as montana.

Originally posted by SoCold:

That was actually 1990

1989 season. 1990 season was when Leonard Marshall ended Montana's 49ers career.

Originally posted by TB12:

Originally posted by English:

How old are you? Check the rules from the 80's before you embarrass yourself again. Professional football has a number of era with different rules and playing standards and comparisons between the eras is impossible in any real way.

And there are different rules in this era that hurt QBs such as free agency and salary cap. Yes, the rules are more geared towards offense in this generation, but there are other standards in place that are a detriment to teams today. It cuts both ways.

No it doesnt. Brady's career has been extended by the rules preventing D's from going all out on the qb's and his figures have been inflated by the rules protecting receivers. Free agency hasnt hurt qb's as it offers the opportunity to sign experienced players. Nothing cuts both ways. The game is quite different and favors the O.

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by TB12:

Originally posted by English:

How old are you? Check the rules from the 80's before you embarrass yourself again. Professional football has a number of era with different rules and playing standards and comparisons between the eras is impossible in any real way.

And there are different rules in this era that hurt QBs such as free agency and salary cap. Yes, the rules are more geared towards offense in this generation, but there are other standards in place that are a detriment to teams today. It cuts both ways.

No it doesnt. Brady's career has been extended by the rules preventing D's from going all out on the qb's and his figures have been inflated by the rules protecting receivers. Free agency hasnt hurt qb's as it offers the opportunity to sign experienced players. Nothing cuts both ways. The game is quite different and favors the O.

Don't forget the fines issued after you hit certain QB's.

Originally posted by TB12:

Originally posted by English:
I dont know what Broncos fans you have been talking to, but Terrell Davis says hi.

I'm talking 80s bro, you know, when Montana faced Elway in the Super Bowl?

Uhh... do you remember Bobby Humphrey? When rushing for 1100 in a season was a BIG deal? Vance Johnson was also 1000 yard receiver that year another BIG deal... and the DEFENSE that Montana lit up for 55 points had At**ter, Smith, Mecklenburg... You act like that Broncos team was a scrub team.

Originally posted by English:

No it doesnt. Brady's career has been extended by the rules preventing D's from going all out on the qb's and his figures have been inflated by the rules protecting receivers. Free agency hasnt hurt qb's as it offers the opportunity to sign experienced players. Nothing cuts both ways. The game is quite different and favors the O.

Ok, let's say you're right. However, Montana was never statistically the best QB of his OWN era. Marino, Elway, and Moon were better statistically, even though they never won super bowls in the 80s. You can't blame that on the rules of the era since other QBs during that time faced them too.

Montana had one thing - and that is he won 4 super bowls against average competition and did not lose in the big game. I'm not saying that isn't impressive, it is, But I don't fall for the argument "Joe is 4-0 in Super Bowls and therefore better than any QB in NFL history," which not many people make these days (after Brady winning #5 last year) but some folks do. Montana was great in the playoffs but struggled at times against good teams (as well as beating a few good teams). It is a fantasy notion that Montana was "perfect" in the playoffs. He was not. Heck, Troy Aikman is 3-0 in the super bowls and Bradshaw in 4-0. Neither of them come up in the GOAT debate.

Originally posted by TB12:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Tuck rule, Vinatieri, Spygate, Deflategate, Seattle choke, Atlanta choke.

NE never won a SB by more than 6 pts.

Brady has lost in the Super Bowl to Eli Manning and Nick Foles. Hes walked off the field with his head down while being showered with the other teams' confetti. Hes thrown picks and fumbled the ball in big moments in the SB. Hes not Joe Montana. Quantity does not trump quality.

He got a comfortable, offense friendly, protected era of quarterbacking to play in, and because of it he stayed healthy enough to keep going for 17+ years. He would never have survived in the 80's.

That's because NE's competition in the SB was far better than anyone Montana ever faced in the SB. Ask any Broncos fan and they will tell you that Denver was John Elway carrying his team to the SB. Boomer Esiason was not exactly a HOF QB either. If you get to the Super Bowl as many times as Brady, you are bound to lose a few. 8-0 in the big game would be crazy. And you can't penalize Brady because he won more games in the playoffs in those years when he made the SB but didn't win it than Montana did in the years he lost in the divisional or NFCCG. Getting to the super bowl obviously requires more wins than losing in the first or second round. If Montana played well against NYG in the playoffs on 3 different occasions, it might be a different story. This notion that Montana is somehow the "perfect" playoff QB is nothing but fantasy. Against tougher opponents he was not nearly as stellar.

LOL, the top teams today are not as good as the top teams when teams could stay together without the Mediocrity Cap.

Originally posted by TB12:

Originally posted by English:

No it doesnt. Brady's career has been extended by the rules preventing D's from going all out on the qb's and his figures have been inflated by the rules protecting receivers. Free agency hasnt hurt qb's as it offers the opportunity to sign experienced players. Nothing cuts both ways. The game is quite different and favors the O.

Ok, let's say you're right. However, Montana was never statistically the best QB of his OWN era. Marino, Elway, and Moon were better statistically, even though they never won super bowls in the 80s. You can't blame that on the rules of the era since other QBs during that time faced them too.

Montana had one thing - and that is he won 4 super bowls against average competition and did not lose in the big game. I'm not saying that isn't impressive, it is, But I don't fall for the argument "Joe is 4-0 in Super Bowls and therefore better than any QB in NFL history," which not many people make these days (after Brady winning #5 last year) but some folks do. Montana was great in the playoffs but struggled at times against good teams (as well as beating a few good teams). It is a fantasy notion that Montana was "perfect" in the playoffs. He was not. Heck, Troy Aikman is 3-0 in the super bowls and Bradshaw in 4-0. Neither of them come up in the GOAT debate.

Its pretty sad a 49er fan would create a new username to argue on behalf of brady on a 49er forum

Originally posted by TB12:

Originally posted by English:

I dont know what Broncos fans you have been talking to, but Terrell Davis says hi.

I'm talking 80s bro, you know, when Montana faced Elway in the Super Bowl?

The 49ers never played the Broncos int he Super Bowl in the 1980s.

Bro, do you even football?

Originally posted by Stevec9932:

Originally posted by TB12:

Originally posted by English:

I dont know what Broncos fans you have been talking to, but Terrell Davis says hi.

I'm talking 80s bro, you know, when Montana faced Elway in the Super Bowl?

Uhh... do you remember Bobby Humphrey? When rushing for 1100 in a season was a BIG deal? Vance Johnson was also 1000 yard receiver that year another BIG deal... and the DEFENSE that Montana lit up for 55 points had At**ter, Smith, Mecklenburg... You act like that Broncos team was a scrub team.

I think rushing for 1100 yards is a bigger deal today then it was back then. Way more passing and a lot of backfield by committee in the last 10 or so years. Back then rbs got a lot more 25-30 carry games.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

LOL, the top teams today are not as good as the top teams when teams could stay together without the Mediocrity Cap.

LOL, the very division Brady has played in his entire career is the pure definition of mediocrity. They literally used division games to fine tune their run in the playoffs. It was never a matter of who'd win that division but by how many games.

Has their been a worse division over any 17-year span in NFL history?

Originally posted by TB12:

Originally posted by English:

No it doesnt. Brady's career has been extended by the rules preventing D's from going all out on the qb's and his figures have been inflated by the rules protecting receivers. Free agency hasnt hurt qb's as it offers the opportunity to sign experienced players. Nothing cuts both ways. The game is quite different and favors the O.

Ok, let's say you're right. However, Montana was never statistically the best QB of his OWN era. Marino, Elway, and Moon were better statistically, even though they never won super bowls in the 80s. You can't blame that on the rules of the era since other QBs during that time faced them too.

Montana had one thing - and that is he won 4 super bowls against average competition and did not lose in the big game. I'm not saying that isn't impressive, it is, But I don't fall for the argument "Joe is 4-0 in Super Bowls and therefore better than any QB in NFL history," which not many people make these days (after Brady winning #5 last year) but some folks do. Montana was great in the playoffs but struggled at times against good teams (as well as beating a few good teams). It is a fantasy notion that Montana was "perfect" in the playoffs. He was not. Heck, Troy Aikman is 3-0 in the super bowls and Bradshaw in 4-0. Neither of them come up in the GOAT debate.

13-5
14-4
16-2
14-4

Those are the records of the teams that Montana beat in the Super Bowl.

average
NOUN
A number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data, in particular the mode, median, or (most commonly) the mean, which is calculated by dividing the sum of the values in the set by their number.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

LOL, the top teams today are not as good as the top teams when teams could stay together without the Mediocrity Cap.

LOL, the very division Brady has played in his entire career is the pure definition of mediocrity. They literally used division games to find tune their run in the playoffs. It was never a matter of who'd win that division but by how many games.

Calling the afc east mediocre is an insult to mediocrity

Originally posted by teylo31:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

LOL, the top teams today are not as good as the top teams when teams could stay together without the Mediocrity Cap.

LOL, the very division Brady has played in his entire career is the pure definition of mediocrity. They literally used division games to find tune their run in the playoffs. It was never a matter of who'd win that division but by how many games.

Calling the afc east mediocre is an insult to mediocrity

My apologies.