Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Because not every Super Bowl championship is equal. If you are playing in an era with inferior teams brought upon by rule changes the difficulty of said title now changes.

How can you even debate the best team ever if every sb championship is equal?

I don't think a team accomplishment should be the be all end all to begin with. It's why Bill Russell isn't the best nba player ever and why Yogi Berra isn't the best baseball player ever.

Postseason success is Joe's strongest argument too so you might want to watch out with that. If you're looking for Jordan statistical dominance neither Tom or Joe tops the list of their era.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

You also lose players in the cap. NE lost a 17 sack guy in Chandler Jones. You think that made a difference?

It's a pretty much a fact that teams are not as good as they use to be in the 80's. Just look at the offensive, defensive rankings of the teams winning it all. In today's NFL teams have won with just a good defensive line and that's about it. With the cap it's nearly impossible to have a complete team like we had. You just can't keep the talent.

I do agree with the playing time point though. Had Joe played with softer rules he'd be healthier in some of his downs years/ lasted longer but it is what is there.

The reality though is that through brady's tenure the same four teams have vied for the AFC title every year - Pittsburgh, Indy, NE, and Denver. Look at Brady's playoff history. Same four teams every year. Sure you get the Baltimores very once in a while (like you had the Vikings in the 1980s) but in the 1980s and this era - you have 4 excellent teams, consistently better than the rest, vying for a trip to the SB.

No one doubts the Patriots are the best of those four teams. No one doubts SF was the best of the four dominant teams in the 1980s.

That, to me, is a wash.

Originally posted by midrdan:

Originally posted by robniner:

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

The cap is a red herring.

In the 1980s you had two avenues to improve your teams: draft and trades. If you missed on the draft you were toast. Yes, you could use "all the money" to sign your guys but if your guys sucked it didn't matter.

Now you have three avenues to improve your team: draft, trades, and free agency. Look at the free agents that the Pats have signed - it's a significant component to their success. You can literally cherry pick great talent, rent it for a couple of years, and jettison it. That simply wasn't the case in 1984.

Defenses in the 1980s could: (a) hit the QB ... in the head; (b) hold WRs past line of scrimmage. The Giants and Bears in the 1980s had multiple seasons when they gave up fewer than 250 points. It is simply easier to play QB now than it was back then. Guys like Stafford and Rivers can throw for 4,000 yards and 30 TDs with regularity. A season like that in the 1980s was unheard of (except Marino).

But leaving that aside, the most significant difference between Joe and Tom is the 6 additional playing years Tom has had. I doubt Joe would have gone to the SB 4 or 5 times in those 6 years given the competition, but on the flip side given the team's success rate in that era it isn't out of the realm of reason to think he would have made it to two more. Taking Joe's 10 years versus Brady's first 10 playing years (2001-2007, 2009-2011), Joe was 4-0, Brady was 3-2.

You play with the time you're given. But the rules now have allowed Brady - and many others - to play the position in relative health well into their late 30s. I doubt Montana would have issues playing today. He would still be really good - and his stats would be considerably better than they were in the 1980s.

It's largely thanks to the "Peyton Manning Rule"

Originally posted by midrdan:

The reality though is that through brady's tenure the same four teams have vied for the AFC title every year - Pittsburgh, Indy, NE, and Denver. Look at Brady's playoff history. Same four teams every year. Sure you get the Baltimores very once in a while (like you had the Vikings in the 1980s) but in the 1980s and this era - you have 4 excellent teams, consistently better than the rest, vying for a trip to the SB.

No one doubts the Patriots are the best of those four teams. No one doubts SF was the best of the four dominant teams in the 1980s.

That, to me, is a wash.

QB play. Brady, Manning, lesser extent Big Ben. Today's league favors great qb's. That can work for you and against you. Easier for your qb, and against you. Your d has to beat those guys. Or some joker like Foles can just get hot.

I'm not saying it's more difficult today though. Just noting today's obstacles.

This is so dumb. Are people still trying to grasp for straws to hang onto this one?.....

5 > 4. Winning 5 Super Bowls is better than winning 4. Period.

Getting to 8 > getting to 4. Yes getting to a Super Bowl is hard. Yes it counts getting there too. Why is the guy who can't get to 8 better than the guy who did get to 8? It makes no sense at all. It's not even logical.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

This is so dumb. Are people still trying to grasp for straws to hang onto this one?.....

5 > 4. Winning 5 Super Bowls is better than winning 4. Period.

Getting to 8 > getting to 4. Yes getting to a Super Bowl is hard. Yes it counts getting there too. Why is the guy who can't get to 8 better than the guy who did get to 8? It makes no sense at all. It's not even logical.

Who is greater, Bill Russell or Michael Jordan?

Who is greater, Mark Messier or Wayne Gretzky?

Who is greater, Paul O'Neill or Ken Griffey, Jr.?

"Getting there" is not dispositive of who is greater.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

QB play. Brady, Manning, lesser extent Big Ben. Today's league favors great qb's. That can work for you and against you. Easier for your qb, and against you. Your d has to beat those guys. Or some joker like Foles can just get hot.

I'm not saying it's more difficult today though. Just noting today's obstacles.

Each era has its own obstacles to be sure. But the obstacle of it being legal for Lawrence Taylor to pick you up and slam your head on Astro turf was significantly impactful on a QB's ability to play more years and compete. So while there are more shootouts now and you have to be an accurate QB to win, you get 5-6 more years now for a chance.

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by babarvaart:

Originally posted by genus49:
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.

Joe won the SB 40% of the time.
Tom has won it 31% of the time.

Where do those percentages come from?

Originally posted by midrdan:

Each era has its own obstacles to be sure. But the obstacle of it being legal for Lawrence Taylor to pick you up and slam your head on Astro turf was significantly impactful on a QB's ability to play more years and compete. So while there are more shootouts now and you have to be an accurate QB to win, you get 5-6 more years now for a chance.

I agree with that one. Of the points for Joe that is the strongest one.

Originally posted by Janitor:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by babarvaart:

Originally posted by genus49:
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.

Joe won the SB 40% of the time.
Tom has won it 31% of the time.

Where do those percentages come from?

Maybe from Joe's golden time of 10 years when 60% of the time Every Time he was either injured or getting beat by the Giants?

Originally posted by midrdan:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
This is so dumb. Are people still trying to grasp for straws to hang onto this one?.....

5 > 4. Winning 5 Super Bowls is better than winning 4. Period.

Getting to 8 > getting to 4. Yes getting to a Super Bowl is hard. Yes it counts getting there too. Why is the guy who can't get to 8 better than the guy who did get to 8? It makes no sense at all. It's not even logical.

Who is greater, Bill Russell or Michael Jordan?

Who is greater, Mark Messier or Wayne Gretzky?

Who is greater, Paul O'Neill or Ken Griffey, Jr.?

"Getting there" is not dispositive of who is greater.

Absolutely 100% sure getting to 8 is better than getting to 4. Plus he WON 5. Winning 5 is better than winning 4. No question about it at all. It's not even in debate.

Lets get this done once and for all.. this is the way I see it.. all the QBs that I saw since I started watching football in 1981... My personal Ranking..

QB FOR BIGGEST GAME = JOE MONTANA

BEST PASSER = DAN MARINO

QB WHO CAN PLAY W/O A COACH: PEYTON MANNING

QB WHO CAN WIN WITH ANY OFFENSE: TOM BRADY

ALL TYPE OF WEATHER QB: JOHN ELWAY

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by midrdan:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

This is so dumb. Are people still trying to grasp for straws to hang onto this one?.....

5 > 4. Winning 5 Super Bowls is better than winning 4. Period.

Getting to 8 > getting to 4. Yes getting to a Super Bowl is hard. Yes it counts getting there too. Why is the guy who can't get to 8 better than the guy who did get to 8? It makes no sense at all. It's not even logical.

Who is greater, Bill Russell or Michael Jordan?

Who is greater, Mark Messier or Wayne Gretzky?

Who is greater, Paul O'Neill or Ken Griffey, Jr.?

"Getting there" is not dispositive of who is greater.

Absolutely 100% sure getting to 8 is better than getting to 4. Plus he WON 5. Winning 5 is better than winning 4. No question about it at all. It's not even in debate.

But losing three has a mark

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Absolutely 100% sure getting to 8 is better than getting to 4. Plus he WON 5. Winning 5 is better than winning 4. No question about it at all. It's not even in debate.

Got it. So you obviously take Bill Russell as the greatest, Messier as the greatest, etc. And I'm not saying you're wrong if your entire analysis is predicated on who has the most titles or trips.

But my analysis of "greatest of all time" is who would I pick in a must win game? I'm taking Bumgardner over Whitey Ford. I'm taking Jordan over Russell. I'm taking Gretzky over Messier. And I'm taking Montana over Brady.

Originally posted by 9moon:
Lets get this done once and for all.. this is the way I see it.. all the QBs that I saw since I started watching football in 1981... My personal Ranking..

QB FOR BIGGEST GAME = JOE MONTANA

BEST PASSER = DAN MARINO

QB WHO CAN PLAY W/O A COACH: PEYTON MANNING

QB WHO CAN WIN WITH ANY OFFENSE: TOM BRADY

ALL TYPE OF WEATHER QB: JOHN ELWAY

what about all those playoff games he lost?