Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Because football is a team game and a QB can shine in a loss or suck in a win. Look at Kurt Warner. He had a QB rating of 112 and threw for 377 yards and 4 TDS against Pittsburgh. He lost because Ben and Santonio Holmes made one of the great plays in SB history. Should that be held against him?

If John Taylor drops the perfect pass in SB 23 and the Niners lose should Joe's legacy be diminished?

My grandma could have caught that pass it was so catchable. What your saying is true but four is a good sample. Dudes a winner. The playoff losses two out of the three were all on walsh and the other was the hof giants beatdown. Nothing anyone in red and gold could have done that day.

If Joe Montana cheated and had the defense's plays he would have 10 super bowls easily.

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

If Joe Montana cheated and had the defense's plays he would have 10 super bowls easily.

Now your exaggerating...8 at best.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Because football is a team game and a QB can shine in a loss or suck in a win. Look at Kurt Warner. He had a QB rating of 112 and threw for 377 yards and 4 TDS against Pittsburgh. He lost because Ben and Santonio Holmes made one of the great plays in SB history. Should that be held against him?

If John Taylor drops the perfect pass in SB 23 and the Niners lose should Joe's legacy be diminished?

My grandma could have caught that pass it was so catchable. What your saying is true but four is a good sample. Dudes a winner. The playoff losses two out of the three were all on walsh and the other was the hof giants beatdown. Nothing anyone in red and gold could have done that day.

I got it. When the Niners won SBs it was all because of Joe but when they lost playoff games it was because of Bill Walsh and not Joe. ok... You do realize how ridiculous that is right?

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
I got it. When the Niners won SBs it was all because of Joe but when they lost playoff games it was because of Bill Walsh and not Joe. ok... You do realize how ridiculous that is right?

Joe doesn't like to play football in Jan. It's why he decided he only wanted 4 early in his career so he didn't have to go out there for the 12 he left not he table.

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

I got it. When the Niners won SBs it was all because of Joe but when they lost playoff games it was because of Bill Walsh and not Joe. ok... You do realize how ridiculous that is right?

Nobodus saying that. But im pretty comfortable saying that usually when a bw team lost in the 80s it was due to scheme not execution. Thats how it looked to me. Nobody said joe is the only reason they won.

Originally posted by titan:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

If Joe Montana cheated and had the defense's plays he would have 10 super bowls easily.

Now your exaggerating...8 at best.

Now you're low balling.

9 with 1 L.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
How is being undefeated in the super bowl a silly or illogical reason to asses performance? It says something. It may not be definitive but it should be considered.

Because the times didn't he make the Super Bowl, he was sometimes terrible. If we want to "assess performance", assess those games too.
- instead of winning the Super Bowl in 1985, Montana and the Niners lost 3-17 to the Giants. Montana had a 65.6 passer rating, 0 TD, and 1 INT
- instead of winning the Super Bowl in 1986, Montana and the Niners lost 3-49 to the Giants. Montana had a 34.2 passer rating, 0 TD, and 2 INT (and was knocked out of the game)
- instead of winning the Super Bowl in 1987, Montana and the Niners lost 24-36 to the Vikings, Montana had a 42.0 passer rating, 0 TD, and 1 INT

There's this tendency to romanticize the Super Bowl, like, "this is it, this is for all the marbles". Joe was too cool and poised to ever lose a game like this! Well, win-or-go-home applies to every playoff game. Was he not cool and composed enough to win those season-deciding games either?

I love Montana and I think he is very-arguably the best QB ever, but the "never lost a SB" argument is absolute horse****.

1985 no scheme for hof giants lbs reasons carson banks taylor 1986 it was a high school team vs college varsity nothing any player could 87 i dont think anyones figured that one out yet. Joe didnt lose those games except maybe 87 he contributed to the mess up.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
1985 no scheme for hof giants lbs reasons carson banks taylor 1986 it was a high school team vs college varsity nothing any player could 87 i dont think anyones figured that one out yet. Joe didnt lose those games except maybe 87 he contributed to the mess up.

On Dec 29, 1985, the Giants beat the 49ers 17-3. Montana had 0 TD, 1 INT, and a 65.6 passer rating.

A week later, on Jan 5, 1986, the Bears beat the Giants 21-0. Jim McMahon had 2 TD, 0 INT, and a 120.3 rating against the same Giants defense.

There's no excuse. Sometimes players have bad games. It's okay to struggle against an elite defense. It happens to the best of them. Sometimes players rise above it (a topical example would be Tom Brady in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl against the Seahawks: down 24-14 at the start of the 4th, he completed 13 of 15 passes, threw 2 TD, and had a 140.7 passer rating). The Seahawks are easily one of the most dominant defenses of the last 10-15 years.

I'm sure within a few posts someone will jump in and explain why this example doesn't count though ("oh well, the Seahawks defense was banged up", "well, you don't understand, the Giants defense was really, really, really good, the Seahawks -- all due respect -- were good, but not as good as the Giants", "oh well, Tom Brady is good, but rainbows literally shoot out of Joe Montana's ass, so he's just not on the same level").

Originally posted by theduke85:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

1985 no scheme for hof giants lbs reasons carson banks taylor 1986 it was a high school team vs college varsity nothing any player could 87 i dont think anyones figured that one out yet. Joe didnt lose those games except maybe 87 he contributed to the mess up.

On Dec 29, 1985, the Giants beat the 49ers 17-3. Montana had 0 TD, 1 INT, and a 65.6 passer rating.

A week later, on Jan 5, 1986, the Bears beat the Giants 21-0. Jim McMahon had 2 TD, 0 INT, and a 120.3 rating against the same Giants defense.

There's no excuse. Sometimes players have bad games. It's okay to struggle against an elite defense. It happens to the best of them. Sometimes players rise above it (a topical example would be Tom Brady in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl against the Seahawks: down 24-14 at the start of the 4th, he completed 13 of 15 passes, threw 2 TD, and had a 140.7 passer rating). The Seahawks are easily one of the most dominant defenses of the last 10-15 years.

I'm sure within a few posts someone will jump in and explain why this example doesn't count though ("oh well, the Seahawks defense was banged up", "well, you don't understand, the Giants defense was really, really, really good, the Seahawks -- all due respect -- were good, but not as good as the Giants", "oh well, Tom Brady is good, but rainbows literally shoot out of Joe Montana's ass, so he's just not on the same level").

But the Rainbows! They rain skittles.

Originally posted by theduke85:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
How is being undefeated in the super bowl a silly or illogical reason to asses performance? It says something. It may not be definitive but it should be considered.

Because the times didn't he make the Super Bowl, he was sometimes terrible. If we want to "assess performance", assess those games too.
- instead of winning the Super Bowl in 1985, Montana and the Niners lost 3-17 to the Giants. Montana had a 65.6 passer rating, 0 TD, and 1 INT
- instead of winning the Super Bowl in 1986, Montana and the Niners lost 3-49 to the Giants. Montana had a 34.2 passer rating, 0 TD, and 2 INT (and was knocked out of the game)
- instead of winning the Super Bowl in 1987, Montana and the Niners lost 24-36 to the Vikings, Montana had a 42.0 passer rating, 0 TD, and 1 INT

There's this tendency to romanticize the Super Bowl, like, "this is it, this is for all the marbles". Joe was too cool and poised to ever lose a game like this! Well, win-or-go-home applies to every playoff game. Was he not cool and composed enough to win those season-deciding games either?

I love Montana and I think he is very-arguably the best QB ever, but the "never lost a SB" argument is absolute horse****.

I don't agree with your last point. the SB is THE BIGGEST game of the year, it's the game each team starts out the year trying to get to and win. That Joe got to 4 of them and won all 4 is pretty special imo.

I don't think there is any real way to prove who is better, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Both Joe and Tom are fantastic QB's, but imo if I was a coach and had a healthy Joe and a healthy Tom all set to go, and we are down 4 points with 90 seconds left in the 4th.....I'm picking Joe Cool every single time to go win the game.

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
If Joe Montana cheated and had the defense's plays he would have 10 super bowls easily.

Joe Montana snorted mounds of coke and Bill Walsh cheated to get better players on the team before the CBA made it illegal to tamper with player contracts.

If you ain't cheating you ain't winning.

Originally posted by theduke85:
... I love Montana and I think he is very-arguably the best QB ever, but the "never lost a SB" argument is absolute horse****.

I don't know if the "never lost a SB argument is ABSOLUTE Horse Manure" or not ... but I'm
one of MANY, that would argue that point all-day with you. It is so hard to compare athletes, across
one era and into another. Since we don't have time machines, and other methods by which to pit
them one against the other together at the same time, statistics and film are all we have by which
to make these type of comparisons.

Lots of people try to make comparisons, strictly by using stats, while never having lived in/during both
players time. It's generational (I get that), and subject to what one relates to. It's a different story (IMO),
when you can factor into the argument, having seen those players in discussion live.

As good as Tom Brady is, he'll never be Joe. Not just to me, but to many others, who have seen them
both (play) during their primes. I have yet to see Brady, put the Patriots on-his-back, on the NFL' biggest
stage, and will them to victory. I witnessed Joe do this twice in SB' !!! Until Brady does so, he'll remain at
# 2 in my eyes.

There was a big discussion/call-in Wednesday, on 95.7 The Game, about this very subject. I called the
show, and mentioned a point most people failed to bring up ... which is, unlike Tom Brady, Joe Montana
never (that I can recall), ever cried, sulked, and lobbied to the Refs, for a flag after a hard or late hit ...
which was the norm of his era !!!

True, the rules of the game are different now (as opposed to then), but that fact alone, goes a long way
in showing me the mindset and general being of the players that are being compared ... because to me,
being The GOAT, encompasses more than Wins and Losses:

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/nfl-super-bowl-quarterbacks-history-best-ranked-brady-montana-bradshaw-012617

Joe Montana, 49ers:
There have been a number of great quarterbacks to play in the Super Bowl, but of them all, Joe Montana
is the best. He played in the big game four times, going a perfect 4-0 with some absolutely unbelievable
stats. In his four trips, Montana never had a passer rating below 100.0. He never threw an interception,
had 11 touchdown passes and two rushing touchdowns, finishing with a career passer rating of 127.8 in
the Super Bowl – the highest of any quarterback.

He may not have the volume of records that Brady holds from his six trips (completions, attempts, yards),
but Montana's numbers are far better, particularly in an era that wasn't as pass-heavy as it is now. If Brady
beats the Falcons, it's possible he'll surpass Montana as the best ever, but not without a strong debate for Joe.

Originally posted by FlayvaMeister:
As good as Tom Brady is, he'll never be Joe. Not just to me, but to many others, who have seen them
both (play) during their primes. I have yet to see Brady, put the Patriots on-his-back, on the NFL' biggest
stage, and will them to victory. I witnessed Joe do this twice in SB' !!! Until Brady does so, he'll remain at
# 2 in my eyes.

Of the 10 highest passing attempt games in SB history the only 2 that have resulted in victory come from Brady. This isn't a strong argument.