Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
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.

I was talking about this year where everyone is all excited that the Pats lost. When you score 33 points with a missed FG and XP thrown in there and lose that's not on the QB.

Everyone is talking about Joe being perfect in the SB well it's easier to be perfect when your defense can get stops. Brady may not have been perfect but he would've had 6 wins right now if his defense could stop the Eagles at least one drive in the 2nd half.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

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.

You're saying "he can't do that" because you actually seen him (Joe) try to do that in this era

You like living in a fantasy because obviously you have a crystal ball and seen what it would be like had Joe played in this era

Here, dude, just fantasize on Aldo Nova in his tights since you love making up things that ONLY fit your fantasy world

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
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.

Eagles were 4th in yards allowed. Pats were 29th.

Once again...see a difference?

You're telling me that 49ers were scoring less when they didn't have to? Then what happened vs Denver? They just decided meh why not get crazy today?

I understand this is a 49ers board but doesn't mean we all have to be blind homers.

Originally posted by genus49:
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?

But Brady would be 0-8. That definitely doesn't have quite the same ring to it (love the pun though!).

Originally posted by genus49:

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?

You made it sound like Montana needed a defense that only gave up 16 ppg to win. That's why I quoted that post.

Originally posted by NinerGM:
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).

I know this is an unpopular truth around these parts...but you have to GET to the Superbowl to have a chance to win it.

Brady was playing against Manning, McNair, Roethlisberger, Rivers on his way TO the SB.

Montana played against the following

Scott Brunner
Danny White
Gary Danielson
Joe Theisman
Phil Simms
Steve Fuller
Wade Wilson
Jim McMahon
Tommy Kramer
Rich Gannon
Jim Everrett
Mark Rypien

....out of all those guys the only guys that were considered legit were Theisman and Simms. Gannon didn't become good until later in his career.

I just dont' feel like going through all the other QBs Brady had to go against. There are some easy ones like Bortles, Landry Jones but let's not pretend he didn't deal with some excellent QBs on his way to the SB.

Originally posted by Niners816:
You made it sound like Montana needed a defense that only gave up 16 ppg to win. That's why I quoted that post.

No, I made a point that Montana had great defenses each time he won a SB which he did and winning SBs as we all know is much easier when the QB doesn't have to score TDs every possession.

This last SB being a prime example.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

A few zoners here truly believe that Brady is better than Montana on the fact that he went to more super bowls (6) vs (4). They believe 4-2 is greater than 4-0 in the big dance. They also reflect on the fact that Montana was surrounded by great players because he flourished in the no salary cap era. But they tend to forget that on the flip side Montana had to deal with ridiculously talented teams like the Giants, Redskins, and Bears. Oh but when you look at the # of all pros and pro bowlers on each SB team, Montana averaged 7 per his SB winning teams, Brady 6. The 84 San Fran team had the most with 10 and Joe took complete advantage. Brady had almost 9 per team in 2007 and 2011 but choked in the big dance.

Also as many zoners have pointed out Montana played in a brutal era where QB's were destroyed and receivers mugged like crazy. He and his receivers didn't have all the protection that whiny ass Brady enjoys today.

Actually we complained in the 80s that the rules were soft on receivers, compared to the 70's! We thought the 80s were the passing years! Of course the nfl just kept going with the silliness until voila here we have football today. 41 33 superbowl with 53 first downs. Gmab.

https://twitter.com/undisputed/status/960905649440768005

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by Niners816:

You made it sound like Montana needed a defense that only gave up 16 ppg to win. That's why I quoted that post.

No, I made a point that Montana had great defenses each time he won a SB which he did and winning SBs as we all know is much easier when the QB doesn't have to score TDs every possession.

This last SB being a prime example.

Their defense this year gave up 18.5 ppg. The 1988 niners gave up 18.4 ppg. Brady's only title with a defense that gave up more that Montana worst supporting defense was 2014 when it was at 19.6 ppg. However, I wouldn't classify giving up under 20 ppg in today's game as terrible. The only Brady super bowl team with a defense that gave up more than 20 was the '11 team (21.4). Other than that, each guy needs a good defense to win a title.

Joe's Defenses
81 (15.6)
84 (14.2)
88 (18.4)
89 (15.8)

Toms defenses
01 (17.0)
03 (14.9)
04 (16.3)
07 (17.1)
11 (21.4)
14 (19.6)
16 (15.6)
17 (18.5)

Again, both guys needed really good defenses to win.

Originally posted by genus49:

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.

No, I'll let Wiki do it for me. Now when did Joe cheat again?

Deflategate was a National Football League (NFL) controversy involving the allegation that the New England Patriots deliberately under-inflated footballs used in their victory against the Indianapolis Colts in the American Football Conference (AFC) Championship Game of the 2014–15 NFL playoffs. The controversy resulted in Patriots quarterback Tom Brady being suspended for four games and the team being fined $1 million and losing two draft picks.[1]

Originally posted by genus49:

I know this is an unpopular truth around these parts...but you have to GET to the Superbowl to have a chance to win it.

Brady was playing against Manning, McNair, Roethlisberger, Rivers on his way TO the SB.

Montana played against the following

Scott Brunner
Danny White
Gary Danielson
Joe Theisman
Phil Simms
Steve Fuller
Wade Wilson
Jim McMahon
Tommy Kramer
Rich Gannon
Jim Everrett
Mark Rypien

....out of all those guys the only guys that were considered legit were Theisman and Simms. Gannon didn't become good until later in his career.

I just dont' feel like going through all the other QBs Brady had to go against. There are some easy ones like Bortles, Landry Jones but let's not pretend he didn't deal with some excellent QBs on his way to the SB.

Patriots got constant free passes to a bye and homefield

Originally posted by Giedi:
No, I'll let Wiki do it for me. Now when did Joe cheat again?

Deflategate was a National Football League (NFL) controversy involving the allegation that the New England Patriots deliberately under-inflated footballs used in their victory against the Indianapolis Colts in the American Football Conference (AFC) Championship Game of the 2014–15 NFL playoffs. The controversy resulted in Patriots quarterback Tom Brady being suspended for four games and the team being fined $1 million and losing two draft picks.[1]

Deflate gate? That's your "cheating"?

Talk about a witch hunt with no substance behind it. What did the Pats do ever since then? Destroyed the Colts in the 2nd half of the game they were "caught" then won a SB vs Seattle.
Lost in the AFC Championship game
Won a SB
Lost a SB

Clearly those balls were the edge they needed over other teams....

And google Montana and cheating. He brings up our linemen putting silicone on their uniform to get an advantage. Bill Parcells accused Walsh of tampering with headsets. Rice used stickum...etc

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
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 TheWooLick:

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 Polkadots:

Originally posted by genus49:
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?

But Brady would be 0-8. That definitely doesn't have quite the same ring to it (love the pun though!).

^^ THE BOLD

#NuffSaid

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
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.

I was talking about this year where everyone is all excited that the Pats lost. When you score 33 points with a missed FG and XP thrown in there and lose that's not on the QB.

Everyone is talking about Joe being perfect in the SB well it's easier to be perfect when your defense can get stops. Brady may not have been perfect but he would've had 6 wins right now if his defense could stop the Eagles at least one drive in the 2nd half.

It is your fault when you have a chance to win it all and you fumble. It is your fault when you get another chance to tie and you blow it. Everyone kept saying the team with the ball last would probably win. The Pats and Brady had the ball last and lost.