Joe Montana Legacy Secured

The dude is in a system that wins Super Bowls. Just like Joe. Ultimately the decision of who is the more desirable and efficient player doesn't have much to do with statistics but the quality of their athletic performance, their skill set.

And Joe just had some qualities in those areas that made him trans-elite. As I said I would only put him with Aaron Rodgers Rodger Staubach. That's pretty much it. From the modern era.

Brady's longevity is truly unique nobody can touch that.

Originally posted by okdkid:

Originally posted by McClusky:

Originally posted by midrdan:

Brady is a great QB but I wouldn't choose him over Montana in a do or die situation. And to me the stats are meaningless if you're not clutch.

There are a lot of good arguments for Montana over Brady, but a notion that clutch is the deciding factor is not a good one. Brady has 3 4th quarter game winning drives in SB's to his credit, and currently sits 2nd all time in game winning drives and 4th quarter comebacks.

I think it's reasonable to take Joe in a do or die situation, but it's not Joe is clutch and Brady isn't.

Yup. This is example A of Montana fans reaching. Brady is either the best or one of the best in virtually every QB statistic of significance. Don't like stats? Ok. He's done it in the FA era. He had a constant turnstile at RB and WR -- the dude wins Super Bowls regardless.

Can't really compare stats from different eras. The Patriots way wins SuperBowls. Heck even Cassell led them to an 11-5 season when Brady went down. The truth is Brady would have wilted in the 80's with the rules that were in place then whereas Montana would be breaking even more records in today's game.

Thats a reasonable claim.

Originally posted by okdkid:

Yup. This is example A of Montana fans reaching. Brady is either the best or one of the best in virtually every QB statistic of significance. Don't like stats? Ok. He's done it in the FA era. He had a constant turnstile at RB and WR -- the dude wins Super Bowls regardless.

...also that turnstile happened to include some pretty good future hofers.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Originally posted by okdkid:

Originally posted by McClusky:

Originally posted by midrdan:
Brady is a great QB but I wouldn't choose him over Montana in a do or die situation. And to me the stats are meaningless if you're not clutch.

+ Show all quotes
There are a lot of good arguments for Montana over Brady, but a notion that clutch is the deciding factor is not a good one. Brady has 3 4th quarter game winning drives in SB's to his credit, and currently sits 2nd all time in game winning drives and 4th quarter comebacks.

I think it's reasonable to take Joe in a do or die situation, but it's not Joe is clutch and Brady isn't.

Yup. This is example A of Montana fans reaching. Brady is either the best or one of the best in virtually every QB statistic of significance. Don't like stats? Ok. He's done it in the FA era. He had a constant turnstile at RB and WR -- the dude wins Super Bowls regardless.

Can't really compare stats from different eras. The Patriots way wins SuperBows. Heck even Cassell led them to an 11-5 season when Brady went down. The truth is Brady would have wilted in the 80's with the rules that were in place then whereas Montana would be breaking even more records in today's game.

While I agree with the first part of your statement, However, you can't use the era argument to the benefit of one guy and not the other. How do we know Brady would have wilted? He's been remarkably healthy even by modern QB standards.

Also we can apply hypotheticals to Brady as well. After winning 3 SB's in the first part of the 2000's, where would the Patriots have been if they didn't have to lose a guy like Ty Law to free agency? At the end of the day it's a hypothetical argument, you can't say 100% one guy would have flourished while the other guy would have wilted.

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by Niners99:

When you're protected by the refs, and you get your version of Bill Walsh for 17+ years, its not hard to see why Brady has accumulated so much success.

It always comes down to this. 2 mins left in the Super Bowl. Down by 4. Your own life is on the line. You can pick one QB in history to lead that drive. Who do you pick?

With stakes that high, not even Patriots fans would choose Brady. We all know who the best is.

You were 2 years old when Joe last won a SB. How would you know.

Joe's legacy was certainly cemented by 2 drives in playoff games thats for sure. To answer your question, I might take Rodgers given his arm strength, mobility, and accuracy. Not to mention his Hail Mary ability.

So youre saying you had to have witnessed something as it happened to know anything about it? This is tragic news to the historians of the world.

This is your OWN life on the line, and this is the Super Bowl. You're honestly leaving it up to Aaron Rodgers? Your funeral. Rodgers has been to 1 Super Bowl, and has a 10-7 career playoff record..

LOL I knew you would get butt hurt. So sensitive. lol There are a lot of great QBs that I might choose for a 4th quarter comeback and it has nothing to do with how many SBs they won. Peyton Manning would be right there. Brady. Joe. Rodgers. Manning is actually by far the greatest in 4th qt come from behind wins.

Joe wasnt perfect. Hell, even before he threw a couple of TD passes to win SB 23 he almost blew the game by throwing a ball right into the hands of Lewis Billips in the endzone. If Billips holds on to that easy pick Joe's legacy is not the same.

As for Rodgers, the talent on his GB teams doesnt even compare to the talent the 49ers had with Joe. He is pretty much the only reason that team wins anything. Just looking at career playoff record and nothing else is shortsighted

The Billups play wouldnt have blown the game. It was earlier in the quarter. It would've made it harder, but it wasnt a game ender. If were looking at dropped picks, every great has had their fair share of them.

You dont seem to be differentiating 2 mins left in the Super Bowl as a factor here. In the most pressure packed moment in someone's career, who stays calm? Who gets it done? I would never risk my own life on Tom Brady in that scenario. Everyone blames Welker for that drop, but Brady threw the ball behind him.

Brady needed Adam Vinatieri to get him his first 3 rings, and an idiotic play call from the Seahawks to get his 4th. Not to mention being babied his whole career in the protection era. If Seattle runs the ball on the 1, Brady would still be on a 12 year SB drought.

His career body of work is impressive, but its cumulative. Defenses cant touch him, so hes having some of his best years at almost 40 years old. His version of Bill Walsh has been there for 17 years and still going. Give Montana 17 healthy seasons with Bill Walsh and see what he accumulates. Montana was brutalized his entire career. He played hurt regularly.

Montana got his rings by performing at his ultimate best in the biggest moments. Tom Brady has needed outside help for all 4. Can you imagine Joe being owned by a team in the Super Bowl like the Giants own Brady?

I dont even know where to begin. First of all, if Billips makes the easy pick the Niners would never have been able to win that game. Even after scoring right afterward they still needed a miracle at the end. Joe almost cost the Niners that game with a bad throw. Just sayin. His legacy wouldnt be the same.

I think its laughable that you are saying Brady needed help from his kicker. LOL I guess the fact that he lead his team on last minute clutch drives to get Vinateri close enough to kick a FG doesnt count. First SB he drove the team from his 17 with 1.43 to go to put his kicker in a position to win it. Next SB he drove the team down with 1 minute to go to get close enough to win 32-29. By the way, he threw for 354 yards and 3 tds. All the Pats wins were close but that doesnt mean Brady wasnt clutch. He really was.

So Joe got his rings because he was awesome while Tom only got his through help. Um Kay. LMAO

They were still in the position to NEED a FG at the end. Brady couldn't finish the win himself. Montana blew out Marino and Elway. He stole victory away from league MVP Boomer Esiason with the 2 minute drive. His SB QB rating is 127.8, by far the best.

You should remember very clearly how violent the league was, especially the NFC for QB's at that time. The Bears, Giants, Eagles, etc. How you can give the edge to Brady, who played in a bubble, is beyond me.

Like I said, give Joe 16 seasons+ with Walsh and ref protection and guess how much more he wouldve accomplished.

+ Show all quotes
All I can do is laugh. "Brady couldnt finish the win himself" DO you realize how dumb this statement is? He lead 2 long drives in the last minute to put his team in a chance to win on a FG.

BTW.. Montana didnt blow out Marino and Elway. The 49ers, with their 2 greatest teams ever, blew out mismatched Dolphins and Broncos teams. You werent alive yet (watch the game if you havent had a chance) but the Niners defense totally shut down Marino lead by Fred Dean and Gary Johnson. It was a total team effort.

Joe was brilliant in SBs. No one is denying that but Brady has been as well.

Ive watched all 5 of our SB wins in entirety. Good to know youre the same patronizing a-hole outside the Giants thread BTW. Whether or not I watched it live is totally irrelevant to this debate, thanks to the miracle of video and statistical records.

I know how much you love to play up the opposing sides greatness and play down your own teams', but take the time to counter my points about the advantages Brady has had in this era, and focus less on balancing on your high horse.

Pretty hard to not be be a little patronizing when I read a post like you just made. "Brady couldnt finish himself". Really 99? You are critical of Brady because all he could so was lead his team down the field for a game winning TD TWICE in the SB and for not throwing a TD pass instead? I promise you dont say that if Montana had lead the Niners to game winning FGs.

You are so biased regarding every one of your teams its crazy. I love my teams but I try to not be a homer but look at things fairly and objectively. Brady and Montana are BOTH amazing. I just dont get how anyone can say without any shadow of a doubt that Montana is clearly greater than Brady. Makes no sense.

But Montana didn't rely on his kicker, he punched it in himself which is the difference. WTF dont you get?

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Originally posted by okdkid:

Originally posted by McClusky:

Originally posted by midrdan:
Brady is a great QB but I wouldn't choose him over Montana in a do or die situation. And to me the stats are meaningless if you're not clutch.

+ Show all quotes
There are a lot of good arguments for Montana over Brady, but a notion that clutch is the deciding factor is not a good one. Brady has 3 4th quarter game winning drives in SB's to his credit, and currently sits 2nd all time in game winning drives and 4th quarter comebacks.

I think it's reasonable to take Joe in a do or die situation, but it's not Joe is clutch and Brady isn't.

Yup. This is example A of Montana fans reaching. Brady is either the best or one of the best in virtually every QB statistic of significance. Don't like stats? Ok. He's done it in the FA era. He had a constant turnstile at RB and WR -- the dude wins Super Bowls regardless.

Can't really compare stats from different eras. The Patriots way wins SuperBowls. Heck even Cassell led them to an 11-5 season when Brady went down. The truth is Brady would have wilted in the 80's with the rules that were in place then whereas Montana would be breaking even more records in today's game.

I still can't believe this discussion is going on a niner board.

The fans arguing for Brady clearly DID NOT WATCH JOE!

IF YOU WATCHED JOE, YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND.

*takes a breath*

Joe played back when player safety did not exist. His body was extremely beaten up.

Joe played 13 years, and only played 16 games FOUR times. Football was a bloodsport compared to the flag football which we understandably (CTE) don't have today. Joe's body was beaten up bad. So would have Tom Brady's. If Brady had played in the 80s no way he'd still be playing. Tom Brady is in his 17th season. Total number of times Tom Brady has played 16 games? 13!!!! The total number of years Joe played. And it would have been 14 for Brady most likely if he wasn't suspended for cheating. Nobody could last like that in the 80s.

I don't want to hear another youngin' that didn't see Joe rant about Brady being better without looking at obvious facts. People quote stats, what about those stats? Joe played in a true warrior time. We'll never see football like that again. QBs are going to win more super bowls, put up bigger stats than Joe. But they won't have played the same game, not even close. Brady got rules just for him to extend his and other QBs careers. I'm all for protecting the QB, but let's not get insane here.

If you watched Joe, all this would be obvious. Joe is easily the GOAT.

Well there is a direct correlation between the many restrictions that have recently been placed on how qb's can be sacked in the last several years and longevity. Dont you think? Thats the point being made. Brady had a rule made up explicitely to prevent low hits on tall qb's. True?

Back in the day no one thought to pass a Leonard Marshall rule about blindsiding qbs. But that was back before multi billion dollar tv contracts.

Originally posted by donalddole:

I still can't believe this discussion is going on a niner board.

The fans arguing for Brady clearly DID NOT WATCH JOE!

IF YOU WATCHED JOE, YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND.

*takes a breath*

Joe played back when player safety did not exist. His body was extremely beaten up.

Joe played 13 years, and only played 16 games FOUR times. Football was a bloodsport compared to the flag football which we understandably (CTE) don't have today. Joe's body was beaten up bad. So would have Tom Brady's. If Brady had played in the 80s no way he'd still be playing. Tom Brady is in his 17th season. Total number of times Tom Brady has played 16 games? 13!!!! The total number of years Joe played. And it would have been 14 for Brady most likely if he wasn't suspended for cheating. Nobody could last like that in the 80s.

I don't want to hear another youngin' that didn't see Joe rant about Brady being better without looking at obvious facts. People quote stats, what about those stats? Joe played in a true warrior time. We'll never see football like that again. QBs are going to win more super bowls, put up bigger stats than Joe. But they won't have played the same game, not even close. Brady got rules just for him to extend his and other QBs careers. I'm all for protecting the QB, but let's not get insane here.

If you watched Joe, all this would be obvious. Joe is easily the GOAT.

Exactly. The quality of play is very different between the two guys.

Originally posted by donalddole:
I still can't believe this discussion is going on a niner board.

The fans arguing for Brady clearly DID NOT WATCH JOE!

IF YOU WATCHED JOE, YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND.

*takes a breath*

Joe played back when player safety did not exist. His body was extremely beaten up.

Joe played 13 years, and only played 16 games FOUR times. Football was a bloodsport compared to the flag football which we understandably (CTE) don't have today. Joe's body was beaten up bad. So would have Tom Brady's. If Brady had played in the 80s no way he'd still be playing. Tom Brady is in his 17th season. Total number of times Tom Brady has played 16 games? 13!!!! The total number of years Joe played. And it would have been 14 for Brady most likely if he wasn't suspended for cheating. Nobody could last like that in the 80s.

I don't want to hear another youngin' that didn't see Joe rant about Brady being better without looking at obvious facts. People quote stats, what about those stats? Joe played in a true warrior time. We'll never see football like that again. QBs are going to win more super bowls, put up bigger stats than Joe. But they won't have played the same game, not even close. Brady got rules just for him to extend his and other QBs careers. I'm all for protecting the QB, but let's not get insane here.

If you watched Joe, all this would be obvious. Joe is easily the GOAT.

It's fine to make an argument for one over the other. If you prefer Joe because of his playing style, and the fact that you have more appreciation for what he did and when he did it, that's a fine argument.

Just realize that you've pretty much just set a standard that is impossible to compare across eras. You can't say with 100% certainty that Brady would have broken down. He played 7 out of 8 seasons pretty much completely healthy before any rules changes went in. Is his longevity now a product of those rule changes, probably. However, Montana had his own pre-made advantages with free agency not being a thing, and playing in a smaller league. How wold Brady have fared if his early 2000's teams that he won 3 out of 4 SB's with hadn't been broken up by FA?

If in an argument you take all the benefits for your guy and assume none of the cost, you don't get an accurate assesment. It's an interesting argument, but you can't get a clear cut answer.

Originally posted by McClusky:

Originally posted by donalddole:
I still can't believe this discussion is going on a niner board.

The fans arguing for Brady clearly DID NOT WATCH JOE!

IF YOU WATCHED JOE, YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND.

*takes a breath*

Joe played back when player safety did not exist. His body was extremely beaten up.

Joe played 13 years, and only played 16 games FOUR times. Football was a bloodsport compared to the flag football which we understandably (CTE) don't have today. Joe's body was beaten up bad. So would have Tom Brady's. If Brady had played in the 80s no way he'd still be playing. Tom Brady is in his 17th season. Total number of times Tom Brady has played 16 games? 13!!!! The total number of years Joe played. And it would have been 14 for Brady most likely if he wasn't suspended for cheating. Nobody could last like that in the 80s.

I don't want to hear another youngin' that didn't see Joe rant about Brady being better without looking at obvious facts. People quote stats, what about those stats? Joe played in a true warrior time. We'll never see football like that again. QBs are going to win more super bowls, put up bigger stats than Joe. But they won't have played the same game, not even close. Brady got rules just for him to extend his and other QBs careers. I'm all for protecting the QB, but let's not get insane here.

If you watched Joe, all this would be obvious. Joe is easily the GOAT.

It's fine to make an argument for one over the other. If you prefer Joe because of his playing style, and the fact that you have more appreciation for what he did and when he did it, that's a fine argument.

Just realize that you've pretty much just set a standard that is impossible to compare across eras. You can't say with 100% certainty that Brady would have broken down. He played 7 out of 8 seasons pretty much completely healthy before any rules changes went in. Is his longevity now a product of those rule changes, probably. However, Montana had his own pre-made advantages with free agency not being a thing, and playing in a smaller league. How wold Brady have fared if his early 2000's teams that he won 3 out of 4 SB's with hadn't been broken up by FA?

If in an argument you take all the benefits for your guy and assume none of the cost, you don't get an accurate assesment. It's an interesting argument, but you can't get a clear cut answer.

The rest of the NFL had to deal with FA losses and parity as well. Montana, though his teams were loaded, still went up against equally powerhouse monstrosities such as the Giants, Redskins, and Bears of the day. And the Patriots way is plug and play. They don't care who they lose, there's probably a good reason if they let a young star slip away. Lately it's been Chandler Jones, Jamie Collins, Revis, etc. Chris Hogan putting up 200 yds in a playoff game? Wtf?

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
The dude is in a system that wins Super Bowls. Just like Joe. Ultimately the decision of who is the more desirable and efficient player doesn't have much to do with statistics but the quality of their athletic performance, their skill set.

And Joe just had some qualities in those areas that made him trans-elite. As I said I would only put him with Aaron Rodgers Rodger Staubach. That's pretty much it. From the modern era.

Brady's longevity is truly unique nobody can touch that.

I like these stats 4-0 (and undefeated) in SBs

It shouldn't matter to us if Brady won another superbowl, in all of our eyes Montana is the greatest qb to play, regardless of what others say.

To the Montana supporters: Honestly, what does Brady have to do for you to consider him the GOAT? Is it win more Super Bowls? Is it further distance himself from other HOF QBs in 4th qtr TD drives? Or, in your mind, is Montana the GOAT no matter what happens because he's protected by the era he played in?

I think playing Styles translate across eras. because that is the athlete. You don't think so? Other things like statistics championships won winning percentage those measures are more indirect. But observing the qualities of the athletes movement their decision-making their mechanical abilities and limitations I think all that can be made a pretty direct comparison