Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by genus49:

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.

You're argument doesn't make sense. Montana overall played better quality QB's. Elway and Marino are better than any QB Brady has ever faced in the Super Bowl which is what matters more. Brady has faced some pretty trash QB's in the AFC Playoffs for years with homefield advantage, as well.

Originally posted by dwy621:

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.

I 100% agree. That was what everyone on social media was saying and he had the ball last and couldn't get the job done. Montana never got shut down in the Super Bowl.

Originally posted by TB12:

Originally posted by NinerGM:
Jim Everett was being called the next Joe Montana. And Mark Rypien had Rothlisberger numbers en route to his Super Bowl. Give me a break. Again Montana's list is far superior. And then once at the big game, it's not even close. Rich Gannon, hell even Wade Wilson was better than any QB Brady saw in this year's playoff run.

FOUR (4) Hall of Famers faced. In the big game.... but my bad. I said I wouldn't do this. I wouldn't debate the undebatable.

I'll give you Elway and Marino are better than any QB that Brady faced in the SB, but the Dolphins and Broncos were not great teams as a whole back in the 80s. For the AFC they were good teams, but nothing compared to the teams in the NFC of that era. Besides, every time Montana took the field, it was against DEFENSES, not against opposing QBs. Against NYG, he got destroyed in the playoffs (Belichick's defenses, in fact).

The Dolphins were 14-2 that year in Super Bowl XIX, not a trash team. The Broncos were a solid team with a good defense they just ran into the greatest team in NFL history. The Niners didn't routinely get dominated by the Giants. They knocked Montana out of the game on two occasions to get the edge.

Originally posted by TB12:

Originally posted by teylo31:
He put them in a position to win you say. Odd then that he lost 2x to them in the SB. Im confused. Can you clarify 49er fan with a new handle to ride bradys jock

Do you watch football? in both giants super bowls, Brady put his team in the lead late in the 4th quarter. He gave the keys over to the defense and it didn't hold. Comprende?

He also couldn't score more than 20 points in either so what's your point? The GOAT should be able to get at least 20 points in the Super Bowl, not rely on the defense to finish the game for him.

Originally posted by Arsenal2004:
You're argument doesn't make sense. Montana overall played better quality QB's. Elway and Marino are better than any QB Brady has ever faced in the Super Bowl which is what matters more. Brady has faced some pretty trash QB's in the AFC Playoffs for years with homefield advantage, as well.

My argument doesn't make sense because it doesn't fit your narrative...

Everyone around here wants to concentrate on the Superbowl because Joe was the best in those games but he only went to 4 with some of the best teams ever. Sorry I don't think not getting there is somehow better than getting there and losing. Especially the way Brady has lost his 3.

Peyton Manning is better than Elway and Marino. Ben Roethlisberger may not be on their level but he's certainly better than any of the QBs Joe faced not named Marino/Elway in the playoffs.

And of course Brady had plenty of trash QBs...that happens when you play in so many playoff games.

Fact is the guy has gone to 8 Superbowls during the salary cap era. The team with the most SB trips during the salary cap era after the Pats are tied for 4 trips.

Originally posted by Arsenal2004:
He also couldn't score more than 20 points in either so what's your point? The GOAT should be able to get at least 20 points in the Super Bowl, not rely on the defense to finish the game for him.

If Joe is the GOAT why did he not get at least 20 points in the 3 losses he had int he playoffs to the Giants? Hell in those 3 losses combined he couldn't even get 20 points.

So tell me again...why is losing in the playoffs before the SB cool? Guess Joe didn't want to win that year?

I love Joe and what he did in the Superbowls will never be beaten but we're not talking about the Greatest SB QB...that's Joe without question. We're talking about the Greatest ever...that includes not losing earlier in the playoffs.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by Arsenal2004:
He also couldn't score more than 20 points in either so what's your point? The GOAT should be able to get at least 20 points in the Super Bowl, not rely on the defense to finish the game for him.

If Joe is the GOAT why did he not get at least 20 points in the 3 losses he had int he playoffs to the Giants? Hell in those 3 losses combined he couldn't even get 20 points.

So tell me again...why is losing in the playoffs before the SB cool? Guess Joe didn't want to win that year?

I love Joe andwhat he did in the Superbowls will never be beaten but we're not talking about the Greatest SB QB...that's Joe without question. We're talking about the Greatest ever...that includes not losing earlier in the playoffs.

Based on your arguments i find that hard to believe.

Originally posted by Jcool:
Based on your arguments i find that hard to believe.

So because I'm not a blind homer I can't love a player for the team I love? Gotcha...

Surely the greatest SB QB is the greatest QB, who cares about getting there and losing.

If baseball went to aluminum bats and some guy hit 900 home runs does everyone then become convinced that he is the best home run hitter ever?

That's basically what all these offensive rule changes have equated to. There is a reason Jeff Hostetler didn't come off the bench for 370 yards and 3 tds in the Super Bowl.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

If baseball went to aluminum bats and some guy hit 900 home runs does everyone then become convinced that he is the best home run hitter ever?

That's basically what all these offensive rule changes have equated to. There is a reason Jeff Hostetler didn't come off the bench for 370 yards and 3 tds in the Super Bowl.

And Hoste did this when the defenses were still brutal.

Originally posted by babarvaart:
Surely the greatest SB QB is the greatest QB, who cares about getting there and losing.

If you can't get there you can't win it. Simple as that.

5 > 4

Losing earlier in the playoffs is still losing.

Is Joe Flacco a better QB than Dan Marino?

Soon as Brady won that 5th SB he took that step from being 1A/1B to #1 and Joe is #2.

Hopefully when it's all said and done and 20+ years form now Jimmy G is the clear #1 above Brady.

Originally posted by babarvaart:

Originally posted by midrdan:

It is hard to compare eras and Montana has played fewer years than Brady has played [Montana played 15 years, but '80 he didn't start, '82 was a strike, '86 he broke his back, '91-'92 he was injured and Young took over; Brady has played 18 years but didn't start in '00 and in '08 was injured]. So call it 10 seasons for Montana versus 16 for Brady.

In those 10 seasons Montana won the SB 4 times - 40%

In Brady's 16 seasons he won 5 times - 31%.

Both impressive.

But the caliber of opponents during their years is significant. Consider, from 1981 to 1990 the Redskins Giants and Bears won a combined 5 SBs [Washington won another in 1991]. Their combined winning percentage that decade was 65%. Those three teams each averaged 10.5 wins per year for the decade. They were good - 12 hall of famers from those teams.

The 49ers won 4 SBs in that era. They beat all three of those teams in the playoffs. They lost to Washington and Giants as well. The point is the 1980s was a decade where 4 amazing teams won 9 of 10 SBs and Joe's team won the most.

The NFC West was not horrible during this decade either. The combined winning percentage of the Rams, Saints and Falcons was 47%. Not amazing. But those teams played 60 games against the 49ers that decade. Their winning percentage against the 49ers was 27%; against the rest of the league the rest of the division was over .500. For the decade.

In comparison, since 2001 the Bills, Jets and Dolphins have won a combined 43% of their games. Taking out their abysmal win percentage against the Pats during this time, the division is still well below .500 against the rest of the league for the past 17 years. They have been consistently bad.

Likewise the three most successful teams during the past 17 years in the AFC aside from the Pats are the Colts, Broncos and Steelers. Their win percentage during Brady's run is 61%

In both cases, the main competitors and the divisions were comparatively more competitive in Montana's era than in Brady's.

A lot has been said about it being harder to win in the salary cap era. That the 49ers just put together a stacked team in 1981 and rolled for a decade. Not so. Of the players that won in 1981, only 5 were with the team in 1989. Aside from Fred Dean, who they traded for, I can't recall a single "big name" the Team signed in the 1980s. It was built through the draft and basically the entire team other than Lott and Montana was turned over from 1981 to 1988-1989.

Conversely, the Patriots have signed or traded for: Moss, Welker, Amendola, Rodney Harrison, Seau, Revis, Vrabel, Dion Lewis, Ninkovich, Branch, Boddin, Chung, Cooks... the era allows teams to plug holes. People want to play for a winner. The Pats draw talent.

The point is neither QB just rolled with the same team. Montana won SBs with different teams - different backfields, O-lines, WRs, and defenses. Same as Brady.

No one should question Brady's greatness. He's awesome. But to suggest that the 49ers benefitted from weak competition or that it is harder to win in this era is preposterous. The best teams since the cap - Pats, Broncos, Steelers and Colts have been the best teams for 17 years. The cap hasn't changed that.

Excellent post

Defenses and no cap makes the difference between the two eras.

Originally posted by Arsenal2004:

Originally posted by TB12:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Jim Everett was being called the next Joe Montana. And Mark Rypien had Rothlisberger numbers en route to his Super Bowl. Give me a break. Again Montana's list is far superior. And then once at the big game, it's not even close. Rich Gannon, hell even Wade Wilson was better than any QB Brady saw in this year's playoff run.

FOUR (4) Hall of Famers faced. In the big game.... but my bad. I said I wouldn't do this. I wouldn't debate the undebatable.

I'll give you Elway and Marino are better than any QB that Brady faced in the SB, but the Dolphins and Broncos were not great teams as a whole back in the 80s. For the AFC they were good teams, but nothing compared to the teams in the NFC of that era. Besides, every time Montana took the field, it was against DEFENSES, not against opposing QBs. Against NYG, he got destroyed in the playoffs (Belichick's defenses, in fact).

The Dolphins were 14-2 that year in Super Bowl XIX, not a trash team. The Broncos were a solid team with a good defense they just ran into the greatest team in NFL history. The Niners didn't routinely get dominated by the Giants. They knocked Montana out of the game on two occasions to get the edge.

Don't forget about the Bengals as well since they fielded good teams during the years they faced us.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
If baseball went to aluminum bats and some guy hit 900 home runs does everyone then become convinced that he is the best home run hitter ever?

That's basically what all these offensive rule changes have equated to. There is a reason Jeff Hostetler didn't come off the bench for 370 yards and 3 tds in the Super Bowl.

You know we've talked about this plenty of times.

The rules are there for every team, it's not like it's just Brady playing by the new rules and everyone else is playing on 80s rules.

Salary cap is a big equalizer. Something Joe didn't have to deal with and we fielded some terrific teams as a result.

And let's be honest the Pats D didn't blow because of the new rules. They couldn't even tackle out there. Their DL was getting rag dolled by the Eagles OL.