Joe Montana Legacy Secured

I can't believe it a grant Cohn article that makes sense I'm disoriented help me help me

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by socalniner:
Grant Cohen is spot on in his article about Montana vs Brady. By his argument for Montana, its not even close!

I usually can't stand that dude but that article is bullseye.

And his numbers would have been better. Much better. Just look at the effect the rule changes had on Brady's numbers.

From 2001 to 2003 – Brady's first three seasons as a starter — he posted passer ratings of 86.5, 85.7 and 85.9. Nothing special.

Then, in 2004, the NFL made a point of emphasis to enforce the 5-yard bump-and-run rule more strictly – defenders could not touch receivers after five yards. As a result of this one change, Brady's passer rating jumped to 92.6.

The rest of the league's passing stats exploded, too. From 2003 to 2004, the league's average passer rating rose from 76.6 to 80.9 — an increase of 4.3 passer-rating points. That's huge for one year. To compare, the league's average passer rating increased by just 3.5 from 1983 to 2003 — 21 years.

In 2008, Brady got hit in the knee and missed the entire season. Then, the NFL changed its rules again. It outlawed defensive players from touching quarterbacks below the knee or above the neck.

Since the NFL put that rule in place, Brady has missed zero games due to injury and his quarterback rating is 100.9.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/sports/8009318-181/grant-cohn-tom-brady-is?utm_source=Sports&utm_medium=impact&utm_campaign=pd_study

1983 - 2003 wasn't just any ol average stretch of quarterbacking in in the NFL. What immediately jumped out to me about 1983?

The 1983 NFL Draft is often considered the draft with the greatest and deepest quarterback talent pool ever. Six -- John Elway (No. 1 overall), Todd Blackledge (No. 7), Jim Kelly (No. 14), Tony Eason (No. 15), Ken O'Brien (No. 24) and Dan Marino (No. 27) -- were taken during the first round, and several others selected later hung around on rosters for many years. Four -- Elway, Kelly, Marino and Eason -- led their teams to Super Bowl appearances, with the Elway-guided Broncos going to five and Kelly's Bills playing in four. Three -- Elway, Kelly and Marino - are in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000343380/article/qbs-in-1983-nfl-draft-overshadow-talent-in-1984s-group

OR...just maybe...Brady just took over that team, was still young, they had a great defense, and Belichick didn't trust him yet. But ya, that's the reason, the 5 yard rule. If it wasn't for that, all NFL QBs today would be awful...

it's amazing how far you guys reach to make a point lol.

Or MAYBE.....it was the five yard rule which raised the league average qbr 4% in one year.

I have to admit, I was beginning to buy into the Brady hype as the greatest ever even though he never passed the eyeball test compared to Montana. Grant got this right and with hard facts.

Originally posted by 60sFan:

I have to admit, I was beginning to buy into the Brady hype as the greatest ever even though he never passed the eyeball test compared to Montana. Grant got this right and with hard facts.

Cohn didn't provide any facts to prove anything. He used stats which help his point. It's something people do all the time and Cohn is no different.

No mention of the salary cap at all which makes it difficult to keep winning and maintaining dominant teams which allow QBs to look better with continued team chemistry and not seeing some of their top talent leave.

No mention of the fact that Joe got to learn and basically had an offensive genius in Bill Walsh design an offense perfect for him and one that was still new in the NFL. That certainly helps Joe look as good as he can when the scheme is a perfect fit and helps improve a stat like QB rating. Quick, intermediate passes is the best way to pad those QB ratings which is the stat Cohn chose to use as his main point.

Also insinuating Brady only got better due to the rule change is ridiculous. Look at the team he had around him on offense those years.

Yes the rules today make it easier on QBs. Yes it's easier to put up passing numbers but my issue is with assumptions Joe in this era and everything is peachy. Joe was knocked out on a hit which is legal these days and just because it draws a flag or a fine doesn't mea defenders don't hit QBs high/low. I'm sure many defenders would love to knock Brady out and deal with the fine. Joe was injury prone unfortunately. Not every QB in those days got hurt. Marino and Elway among others didn't have so many injuries. Just like QBs today still get hurt. Look at RG3, Big Ben and Luck.

IMO only way to not play hypotheticals is look at what each guy did in their eras. IMO Brady doing what he's done in the salary cap era is simply more impressive. I understand that's not a popular opinion around here but Cohn's article doesn't change anything.

I hope you all feel dirty for using Cohn in a discussion btw

Cohn compared the quarterbacks each to his era. He showed Joe had a much higher qbr relative to the league average than Brady had in his era.

So, what are you saying....?

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Cohn compared the quarterbacks each to his era. He showed Joe had a much higher qbr relative to the league average than Brady had in his era.

So, what are you saying....?

I'm confident you know how to read...it's literally posted right above yours.

We need to do a chi square regression statistical meta-study analysis

Originally posted by 60sFan:

I have to admit, I was beginning to buy into the Brady hype as the greatest ever even though he never passed the eyeball test compared to Montana. Grant got this right and with hard facts.

Grant probably plagerized those ideas from here.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by JimA49ers:
Brady destroyed his phone to hide the proof and to protect himself. Goodell destroyed the Spygate tapes to hide the proof and to protect the NFL.

Let me guess ESPN told you this so it must be true?

Fact is there was 0 proof that Brady wanted the balls set at the illlegal levels. Every single text or message they had with him mentioning ball levels it was within the legal level. They collected the records from everyone else involved and he provided them a copy of all the relevant texts and emails.

The NFL never asked for his phone and was provided everything they needed. Him destroying his phone like he did when getting new phones was a total "look over here" story to get public opinion against Brady. It's sad that it seemed to work so easily that people act like it's a fact he was busted for any cheating.

The Wells report was a joke and a total witch hunt. "He probably knew something" is not actually providing any proof. Brady wanting the balls at the lower level...but legal level is a preference. It's within the legal range but you measure the ball during the 2nd half of a cold wet game and laws of physics do play a factor. And even then the reports were BS. From ESPN saying a bunch of balls were well under the limit to saying the Colts player felt it was super low....he came out and said that never happened by the way.

If you look at the actual facts and use your head you'll see it was a complete overblown witch hunt by Goodell and one that's awful for the NFL. When he can pick and choose who and how he punishes them...it's not a good thing.

I'm fairly certain you're leaving out critical facts,,,

When the information was first requested, Brady refused to turn the information over. Brady did not turn the information over until his appeal. And the information he did turn over was missing everything from the second half of that season. It only contained information from before November '14 and after March '15.

The cell phone Brady destroyed was the cell phone used between November '14 and March '15. Kind of odd Brady didn't destroy the cell phone he used before November or after March, but did destroy the cell phone he used during the last half of that season leading up to the SB.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Cohn compared the quarterbacks each to his era. He showed Joe had a much higher qbr relative to the league average than Brady had in his era.

So, what are you saying....?

I'm confident you know how to read...it's literally posted right above yours.

Well played. Avoid the topic with smart alec response. Niiiice.

Dangit eff Cohn in his ballz now this genuspatriot guy is gonna go crazy now trying to defend his boy.

Originally posted by NinerGM:
Can we please not talk about the salary cap without also mentioning why it exists; unfettered free agency which didn't exist during the Joe Montana era. So yes it's hard to keep a team together but it's also possible with enough cap room to build a dream team.

Imagine if you will Randy Moss becoming a free agent and gets acquired by the 49ers along with Rice or Taylor? Or let's be more era-specific. Charles Haley leaves, but the 49ers bring in Derrick Thomas or Bruce Irvin or find a way to pry Lawrence Taylor away from the Giants. Craig leaves for the Raiders and Barry Sanders refuses to sign a a deal in Detroit and joins a Montana offense in its prime.

Cohn did provide facts; universal truth - rule changes intentionally helped the offense and protect QB health. That's not undisputed. He didn't just say that Brady got better, but all QBs got better on average. That again was intentional and undisputed.

There is no "salary cap" era - it's the Free Agency era so organizations wouldn't have an unfair advantage because an owner could pour more money into his team because he owned a franchise in a larger market or just liked spending excessively on his players.

IMHO, the era of Free Agency makes it much easier for teams to go from worst to first. The strategy is no more difficult for maintaining success than before - just different. Pre- Free Agency era, you lived and died by draft picks and back then drafted players often made more than NFL vets. These days I'd you screw up a pick here or there, not the end of the world, you can cover yourself with a decent FA. Of course the one constant remains - you must have a QB. Everything else can have a combo of drafted or acquired.

The inference is that Montana wouldn't be as or more successful in the Free Agency era with different characters outside of "Rice /Taylor " which I've always disputed and one of very few QBs white took two different organizations to the playoffs.

The real question we should ask is if Brady is successful without Hoodie? I think that's a much stronger argument than whether Montana would be successful outside Walsh's 49ers or generally successful in today's era.

You're right free agency makes it easier for teams to go from worst to first...which isn't what the Pats are doing. The fact that they're able to keep winning with free agency and the salary cap in play is super impressive.

You want to throw out your free agency examples while conveniently forgetting the fact that the 49ers wouldn't be able to keep their own players. Pre free agency era punished teams who couldn't draft well and aquire their own home grown talent. The 49ers under Walsh had no such problems. You think we'd be able to even have that 89 team if there was a salary cap and free agency?

The proof is in the pudding and in the salary cap/free agency era(whatever you want to call it) there has only been one dynasty and only one QB who has won more than 2 SBs and went to more than 4 SBs.

Your last part is once again getting into hypotheticals. But if you want to go there I'd say Brady at least as a QB has a great chance to be successful with any coach considering as a pocket passer with a super fast release he can fit in almost any scheme plus look at the results Belichick had with Drew Bledsoe who was a pretty damn good QB. People love to point out how many games Matt Cassel won when Brady got hurt but that team was much more talented and the decline by the QB was pretty clear. The Pats also missed the playoffs that year and lost 6 more games than the year prior in the regular season which is a pretty big swing.

Meanwhile Bill Walsh specifically drafted Joe due to scheme fit and put together an offense around him tailored for his skillsets. I'm not going to say that Joe couldn't succeed with another HC/team but if we're talking about QB rating then Joe had a much bigger advantage partnering up with Walsh than Brady did with Belichick.

I can also argue that Belichick who was a defensive minded head coach had Brady be more of a game manager early in his career and it was Brady's ability and improvement that allowed Belichick to trust that he can put the offense on Brady's shoulders and let him throw the ball as much as he started to.

Like I said if people want to think Montana is better that's fine. Personally when deciding who the GOAT is I'm looking at the whole picture and yes wins are part of it and Brady's ability to win in an era where teams go from worst to first and from first to crap all the time the continued success is crazy. And yes longevity is also part of it. A QB should not be playing at that level at 40 years old. We'll see how he does at 41, that cliff comes up fast.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Well played. Avoid the topic with smart alec response. Niiiice.

It was literally right there.

Cohn's main argument is centered around the QB rating. Joe was drafted by one of the best offensive minds in the game in Bill Walsh who tailored his offense around him an offense which helps QBs improve their QB rating in essence by design. It was an offense that was still pretty new to the league and it got even better as we added guys like Craig and Rice.

Aaron Rodgers has the best QB rating in history of the game..should he be considered the greatest? Any article written with the main point being made off one stat is flawed and most people with an agenda can find a stat to go off of.

I already said why I think Brady is the best ever. To me what he's done in the salary cap/free agency era is crazy and nobody else comes even close and yes I'm not going to assume that Montana in today's NFL somehow plays til he's 40+ at a high level. There are guys today who are injury prone just like Joe was back in the day. In fact one argument I see around here for why Joe was better is his mobility...well mobile QBs are the ones who tend to get hurt more often than the statue pocket QBs.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Dangit eff Cohn in his ballz now this genuspatriot guy is gonna go crazy now trying to defend his boy.

I was perfectly willing to let this thread die but we don't go here to not talk about football.