Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by okdkid:

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 agree that winning the Super Bowl is not the main consideration. It's the quality of play of the player. I think that's that's what everybody is talking about when they say you have to watch Joe play and certainly Brady won't change his quality of play at this point in his career he is who he is. And he's an excellent quarterback one of the all-time greats. No argument there. And very likely the most durable most productive quarterback who will ever play the game but I'm not sure all that makes him the goat

Originally posted by okdkid:

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?

Do all that without cheating aka "Bill Bellicheat"

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Originally posted by okdkid:

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?

Do all that without cheating aka "Bill Bellicheat"

Walsh was known to look for an edge as well

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Originally posted by okdkid:
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?

Do all that without cheating aka "Bill Bellicheat"

So that would be a resounding "la la la Montana is the GOAT la la la I can't hear you"

brady has played in almost 14% of all Super Bowls and nearly 50% of the Super Bowls during his career. Both he and Joe had help from incredible defenses - but all QB's do. peyton had both his SB's won by defense (hot D in Indy and then Denver) - rodgers ditto - would never have won without the turnover machine that his defense had become. same for brees, same for Ben.

Joe didn't carry anyone to SB's - he was an elite player - one of the greatest of all time that did his job.

for me its Joe and Brady 1-2 - i can see arguments going both ways and wouldn't argue about it - but to say Brady isnt in Joe's realm of greatness is just plain hating

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
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?

I mean is that really a counter argument? If the Patriots offense is plug and play doesn't that really just speak to the excellence of the one consistent piece offensively?

Also, the NFC was a powerhouse in the 1980's, and even despite that, a greater % of Brady's playoff losses came to the eventual SB winner than Montana's did.

It's definitely a very real debate.

Originally posted by McClusky:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
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?

I mean is that really a counter argument? If the Patriots offense is plug and play doesn't that really just speak to the excellence of the one consistent piece offensively?

Also, the NFC was a powerhouse in the 1980's, and even despite that, a greater % of Brady's playoff losses came to the eventual SB winner than Montana's did.

It's definitely a very real debate.

The fact that this debate is even happening on the absolutely most biased place in the universe to have this argument should be a testament to Brady's GOAT-ness.

Tom Brady is the GOAT

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
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.

Montana's era had the 250 Pound Lineman....that's how much avg LB's weigh in todays NFL. They are also more powerful and faster today than ever before and there is more of a propensity to use their bodies as missiles than ever before. It's bad reasoning, considering Brady came into an NFL that Steve Young couldn't survive.

Originally posted by BimmerKing:
Tom Brady is the GOAT

Tom Brady is a great QB for sure, no-one can realistically argue that, but I've watched both Tom and Joe play, and believe me.....Joe is the GOAT.

Originally posted by McClusky:
I mean is that really a counter argument? If the Patriots offense is plug and play doesn't that really just speak to the excellence of the one consistent piece offensively?

Also, the NFC was a powerhouse in the 1980's, and even despite that, a greater % of Brady's playoff losses came to the eventual SB winner than Montana's did.

It's definitely a very real debate.

Did you see Joe play? Besides statistical reasons, what do you feel makes Brady the GOAT of the modern era?

Would you rather have Brady than Staubach, say?

I have a hard time making that claim, without the mobility piece, for me personally.

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.

I concur. Some in here want to make the claim that Joe is better because he finished off a SB with a game winning TD instead of game winning fgs. Well, first of all it was only in ONE SB. There were no other clutch 4th quarter moments in the others. Secondly, Brady did have 3 4th quarter comebacks in SBs where he just needed FGs in the end. Two of those needed drives with barely over a minute on the clock. So, clutch is not a fair or sensible argument at all.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by McClusky:
I mean is that really a counter argument? If the Patriots offense is plug and play doesn't that really just speak to the excellence of the one consistent piece offensively?

Also, the NFC was a powerhouse in the 1980's, and even despite that, a greater % of Brady's playoff losses came to the eventual SB winner than Montana's did.

It's definitely a very real debate.

Did you see Joe play? Besides statistical reasons, what do you feel makes Brady the GOAT of the modern era?

Would you rather have Brady than Staubach, say?

I have a hard time making that claim, without the mobility piece, for me personally.

I think you do have to consider stats and wins when you try to evaluate any player. Brady certainly doesnt have the mobility that Joe or Roger had. However, his accuracy is on par and his arm strength was superior in my opinion. He also has that crazy will to win and compete (like Joe) that the great ones all have.

Honestly, if you JUST look at the total skill package then I would say Rodgers could be the greatest ever. In my 50+ years of watching football I have never seen a guy with the combination of mobility, arm strength, quick release, and accuracy that Aaron has. Not Joe. Not Brady. Not Staubach. But the skills alone to not put him as the GOAT. Wins and results have to also be considered.

I saw every game Joe played at the Stick and he is my favorite Niner of all time. So, I am the last thing from a hater and the argument that you had to see him play doesnt fly with me. He was amazing. I just dont think he is so head and shoulders above Tom Brady that it can be said that he is CLEARLY the greatest of all time.

One thing I will agree with. Joe was the greatest SB QB of all time. To me there is no debate on this. Brady has been great but Joe was virtually perfect.

I'm not much into arguments about who was the "greatest" this or that. Montana was the best QB of his generation Brady is the best QB of his. Both were locks for the HOF before their careers ended. There is no way to minimize Brady's achievements over the years but everything else being equal I think I would still pick Montana in his prime over Brady in his prime if I needed to win one game for two reasons, Montana was more athletic and could occasionally hurt you with his legs which Brady could never do. Both are INTENSE competitors but I don't recall ever seeing Joe get rattled. I can remember games where he was just getting pummeled and he'd get back up and go to work. Joe Cool. You hit Brady often enough and you can throw him off his game. I think it was a game against the Chiefs a couple of years where he was getting hit or sacked or hurried almost every time he dropped back and by the end of the game he was a mess, yelling at his lineman, storming around on the sidelines, Joe was always just Joe, out there doing his job. The other thing that gives Montana a slight edge is that at age 39 or whatever he was when he went to the Chiefs he took a team that was not nearly as talented as the ones he had played on in SF to the AFC Championship game his first year there. Although he was still playing in a WCO he had new coaches and players around him but he could still get it done. Brady has had the benefit of being with the same coach and system his entire career which in no way diminishes his remarkable play but it certainly has had to have helped him. And there is the fact that Joe never lost a Super Bowl or threw a pick in one, though he didn't appear in as many as Brady so who knows what might have happened. Because Joe and I are about the same age I will always have a soft spot for him but Brady has been pretty darn good. Too bad Walsh couldn't see past his own biases about the position, I believe I remember him saying that he thought Carmazzi (sp?) was the best QB in that draft because of his athleticism, and I think was consulting with the team at that time and recommended him to the front office, who knew.

Originally posted by 49ers81:
I'm not much into arguments about who was the "greatest" this or that. Montana was the best QB of his generation Brady is the best QB of his. Both were locks for the HOF before their careers ended. There is no way to minimize Brady's achievements over the years but everything else being equal I think I would still pick Montana in his prime over Brady in his prime if I needed to win one game for two reasons, Montana was more athletic and could occasionally hurt you with his legs which Brady could never do. Both are INTENSE competitors but I don't recall ever seeing Joe get rattled. I can remember games where he was just getting pummeled and he'd get back up and go to work. Joe Cool. You hit Brady often enough and you can throw him off his game. I think it was a game against the Chiefs a couple of years where he was getting hit or sacked or hurried almost every time he dropped back and by the end of the game he was a mess, yelling at his lineman, storming around on the sidelines, Joe was always just Joe, out there doing his job. The other thing that gives Montana a slight edge is that at age 39 or whatever he was when he went to the Chiefs he took a team that was not nearly as talented as the ones he had played on in SF to the AFC Championship game his first year there. Although he was still playing in a WCO he had new coaches and players around him but he could still get it done. Brady has had the benefit of being with the same coach and system his entire career which in no way diminishes his remarkable play but it certainly has had to have helped him. And there is the fact that Joe never lost a Super Bowl or threw a pick in one, though he didn't appear in as many as Brady so who knows what might have happened. Because Joe and I are about the same age I will always have a soft spot for him but Brady has been pretty darn good. Too bad Walsh couldn't see past his own biases about the position, I believe I remember him saying that he thought Carmazzi (sp?) was the best QB in that draft because of his athleticism, and I think was consulting with the team at that time and recommended him to the front office, who knew.

Carmazzi was option B in that draft if we're talking Giovanni Carmazzi? There is gem of a story that you can dig for on the net about the 2000 draft room and his desire to land Chad Pennington with our 2nd 1st round pick that year but lost out on the chance when the Jets Drafted him with one of their 3 1st round picks that year.