Joe Montana Legacy Secured

reported

Originally posted by NCommand:
This is a Niner board. If you don't think Joe Montana is the GOAT...



...j/k

I honestly haven't been all that invested into this argument to begin with. Compared to wins/losses and winning Super Bowls as a team/franchise, determining who's the GOAT is much more subjective and is based on individual performance, which the sport isn't really all that focused on. Just for perspective, I rooted like hell for New England to beat Seattle in XLIX. I hardly cared that it would lift Brady's legacy over Montana's, simply because my main concern was the Seattle FRANCHISE going back-to-back.

And for the record, if I had to pick someone, I would say Brady is the GOAT, simply because his list of accomplishments (which is what the number one factor should be in determining the GOAT IMO) is unfathomable. It's not keeping me up awake at night, though. I'm pretty sure the average NFL fan knows who Joe Montana is, and in a good way.

Originally posted by SoCold:

reported

Im so offended.

Originally posted by genus49:

First of all I'm sure you know the NFL ranks defense by yards allowed stat.

I look at both.

Look at the final 4 defenses in the NFL playoffs this year. One clearly doesn't belong.

You had Vikings who were #1 in points and yards allowed.
You had the Jags who were #2 in points and yards allowed
You had the Eagles who were #4 in points and yards allowed
You had the Patriots who were #5 in points and....#29 in yards allowed.

Something doesn't compute there.

Joe never had a defense in the SB who wasn't top 10 in either category.

Also the Pats D in 2007 was horribly overrated. I was telling my friends who are all pats fans all year that season that the defense was crap and was going to bite them in the ass. It did.

I was saying the same thing this year and to be fair the 2007 defense was WAY better than this one.

The whole bend but don't break defense is another way of saying lucky. Well luck runs out eventually. You can only have so many offenses make bonehead mistakes or luck out on weird catch rules.

There are pros and cons to considering how good a defense is based on just points allowed
Pro - at the end of the day it's points that win games
Cons - defensive TDs by the other team count against points allowed, so do special team TDs. Turnovers by the other team give defenses short field to defend. If the team has a really good offense who doesn't come off the field much it only allows you to score so many points against them.

Same for yards allowed
Pro - if the other team can't get yards they typically can't score many points
Con - Yards don't win games.

That's why I look at both. A team who is top 10 in both categories typically shows a defense who can not only keep the other team from marching down the field but also keep them from scoring points.

I think it speaks to the eras. In the pre cap days you needed a fully rounded defense to win. The cap era allows those goofy split defenses and some very unbalanced teams to win. Toms first SB was a goofy split defense, yet it was able to hold the Rams to 17.

I hate comparing eras. Personally having seen both guys I think Joe was a better QB. However, I have no problem with Tom having that label. I'm just gonna appreciate both of them and be thankful that my favorite team has had a dynastic run and players that have held the spot as best ever.

Originally posted by NCommand:
This is a Niner board. If you don't think Joe Montana is the GOAT...



...j/k

Exactly!!!

JC Montana only played 3 full seasons in his career. It's safe to say if he never broke his back he could have played in 6-8 SBs? Also could have been 4-2 or 5-3 overall. lol

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by genus49:
First of all I'm sure you know the NFL ranks defense by yards allowed stat.

I look at both.

Look at the final 4 defenses in the NFL playoffs this year. One clearly doesn't belong.

You had Vikings who were #1 in points and yards allowed.
You had the Jags who were #2 in points and yards allowed
You had the Eagles who were #4 in points and yards allowed
You had the Patriots who were #5 in points and....#29 in yards allowed.

Something doesn't compute there.

Joe never had a defense in the SB who wasn't top 10 in either category.

Also the Pats D in 2007 was horribly overrated. I was telling my friends who are all pats fans all year that season that the defense was crap and was going to bite them in the ass. It did.

I was saying the same thing this year and to be fair the 2007 defense was WAY better than this one.

The whole bend but don't break defense is another way of saying lucky. Well luck runs out eventually. You can only have so many offenses make bonehead mistakes or luck out on weird catch rules.

There are pros and cons to considering how good a defense is based on just points allowed
Pro - at the end of the day it's points that win games
Cons - defensive TDs by the other team count against points allowed, so do special team TDs. Turnovers by the other team give defenses short field to defend. If the team has a really good offense who doesn't come off the field much it only allows you to score so many points against them.

Same for yards allowed
Pro - if the other team can't get yards they typically can't score many points
Con - Yards don't win games.

That's why I look at both. A team who is top 10 in both categories typically shows a defense who can not only keep the other team from marching down the field but also keep them from scoring points.

I think it speaks to the eras. In the pre cap days you needed a fully rounded defense to win. The cap era allows those goofy split defenses and some very unbalanced teams to win. Toms first SB was a goofy split defense, yet it was able to hold the Rams to 17.

I hate comparing eras. Personally having seen both guys I think Joe was a better QB. However, I have no problem with Tom having that label. I'm just gonna appreciate both of them and be thankful that my favorite team has had a dynastic run and players that have held the spot as best ever.

What tips it in Joe's favor for me is the fact that it's really hard to catch cheaters. If Tom gets caught once, imagine all the other times Tom cheated and didn't get caught. Now if you got caught multiple number of times, imagine *all the other times* you got away with it times the number of times you did get caught. To me that number is big. Big enough to discount all of his wins.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Wut..so you're saying theoretically if the 49ers gave up 41 points in those Super Bowls but their offensive output remained the same they'd lose? C'mon man! Hahahahaha.

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's called putting things into perspective.

Going 4-0 is much easier when your defense averages giving up 16 points per game.

It's not perspective. It's ludicrous thinking, for example, if Marino and the Dolphins put up 41 (from 16) in the '85 SB that Montana and Co. would be stuck at 38.

Your boy Brady's defense in 2008 and 2012 gave up 17 and 21 pts to the Giants and yet still lost with those record setting offenses.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Wut..so you're saying theoretically if the 49ers gave up 41 points in those Super Bowls but their offensive output remained the same they'd lose? C'mon man! Hahahahaha.

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's called putting things into perspective.

Going 4-0 is much easier when your defense averages giving up 16 points per game.

Worst defense Brady won a super bowl with gave up 313 points for the season (19.6 pg). Worst defense Joe won a super bowl with gave up 294 points (18.4 pg).

Originally posted by NCommand:
I guess it's settled then.

"Joe Montana is officially back in the spot of the greatest QB of all time. He is the GOAT -- 4-0, 11 TDs, 0 INTs, 3 MVPs... With this loss now, Brady is out of the conversation." — @RobParkerFS1 pic.twitter.com/I0GkpZKvGU

— UNDISPUTED (@undisputed) February 6, 2018

yep! totally AGree!

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by NCommand:

I guess it's settled then.

"Joe Montana is officially back in the spot of the greatest QB of all time. He is the GOAT -- 4-0, 11 TDs, 0 INTs, 3 MVPs... With this loss now, Brady is out of the conversation." — @RobParkerFS1 pic.twitter.com/I0GkpZKvGU

— UNDISPUTED (@undisputed) February 6, 2018

So Brady throws for 500 yards and 3 TDs against one of the best defenses in the league as his defense can't get a single stop in the 2nd half against a backup QB and Brady get's knocked down a peg?

Idiotic...

I said this before...if Joe's defense gave up 41 points the way Brady's did he would've been 1-3 in SBs. Doesn't have quite the ring to it does it?

The Eagles ranked 4th in points allowed, the Patriots ranked 5th.
If the 49wrs defense would have given up more points, Walsh and Montana would have put more points on the board. Situations dictate play calling.

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Does anyone know how many of the teams Joe lost to in the playoffs went on to win the Superbowl. I'd be curious.

3 (83 Skins and 86/90 Giants)

Edit: was wrong about 83 skins

I'm a little surprised. I thought it would be more than that.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by TB12:
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. 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 no.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

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.

Ok let's breakdown each team these guys faced in Super Bowls.
Niners
1981 Bengals OFF (3rd pts, 2nd yds) DEF (12th pts, 12th yds)
1984 Dolphins OFF (1st pts, 1st yds) DEF (7th pts, 19th yds)
1988 Bengals OFF (1st pts, 1st yds) DEF (16th pts, 15th yds)
1989 Broncos OFF (8th pts, 15th yds) DEF (1st pts, 3rd yds)

Pats
2001 Rams OFF (1,1) DEF (7,3)
2003 Pathers OFF (15,16) DEF (10,8)
2004 Eagles OFF (8,9) DEF (2,10)
2007 Giants OFF (14,16) DEF (17, 7)
2011 Giants OFF (9,8) DEF (25,27)
2014 Seahawks OFF (10,9) DEF (1,1)
2016 Falcons OFF (1,2) DEF (27,25)
2017 Eagles OFF (3,7) DEF (4,4)

So the average offense Joe faced was 3rd in Points and 5th in yards. The average defense for Joe was 9th in Points and 12th in yards. Toms ave faced offense was 8th in Points and 9th in yards. Average def was 12th in Points and 11th in yards.

Anderson
Marino
Esiason
Elway

vs

Warner
Delhomme
McNabb
Eli
Eli
Wilson
Ryan
Foles

Only QB from Brady's list that even cracks the conversation against Montana's competition is Warner. TWO of those Super Bowls was done without Rice, Taylor, Jones, Rathman, etc. Trust me - no one thought Dwight Clark was the imminent receiver of his day (1st pick of the TENTH round).

Awesome post!

Originally posted by Giedi:
What tips it in Joe's favor for me is the fact that it's really hard to catch cheaters. If Tom gets caught once, imagine all the other times Tom cheated and didn't get caught. Now if you got caught multiple number of times, imagine *all the other times* you got away with it times the number of times you did get caught. To me that number is big. Big enough to discount all of his wins.

Stop this...it's embarrassing.

How did Brady cheat? I'll wait.

What we do know is there have been several violations by the 49ers that we were caught for and guys have admitted to after the fact so you can say how many other "bending of the rules" weren't admitted to or brought to light?

The whole "Patriots and Brady cheated" are lazy arguments to try to knock down a great franchise which has been winning at an amazing rate within the salary cap era.

If you want to stick to things like rule changes that's fine but don't throw out the cheating thing out there because you're either naive about the stuff we've done or want to pretend it didn't exist because we weren't actually punished for it by the league.

Originally posted by Niners816:
Worst defense Brady won a super bowl with gave up 313 points for the season (19.6 pg). Worst defense Joe won a super bowl with gave up 294 points (18.4 pg).

What exactly is your point with that?