Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Fragile? You're not serious right? Do you think getting knocked out by Jim Burt and having his back broken by Leonard Marshall is a sign of fragility? Really? Unlike you're personal hero who jas avoid contact at all costs for the last nine years. seriously.

All of Bradys Superbowl victories have been associated with cheating. Also he's played in the s**ttiest division his whole career. Can you imagine Joe Montana on the Patriots playing against the Bills, Dolphins, and Jets the last 17 years? He would have won 8-10 superbowls, especially in a cheating ass system like the Patriots. This isn't even a debate but people will look at the rings. If it was all about the rings, Terry Bradshaw should be in the debate too lol.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Fragile? You're not serious right? Do you think getting knocked out by Jim Burt and having his back broken by Leonard Marshall is a sign of fragility? Really? Unlike you're personal hero who jas avoid contact at all costs for the last nine years. seriously.

lol I dont know if you went to games at the Stick but I saw every game Joe ever played there. I was there when Marshall hit him and I also know that Marshall didnt break his back. He had back surgery in 1986. He did break some ribs though.

The point was... lots of guys in that era played without getting hurt and without missing games. There is no evidence or reason to think that Brady wouldnt have been able to do that. Joe, sadly, did miss some games due to some big hits.

FInally... stop with the personal hero crap. Montana is my favorite player ever. I just am not biased like you and others in here and try to show that it isnt a slam dunk on the GOAT

Both hits knocked him out cold. Brady is not a physical guy, he's not fast, he's not nimble, he's not especially challenging. It's less likely he would maintain his health in prior eras. Joe is the smaller guy, but a little tougher out on the football field. Brady has unmatched durability, partly a result of avoiding contact.

Patriots bunch of cheaters shouldn't ever be compared with the beasts of the 80s and 90s.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Both hits knocked him out cold. Brady is not a physical guy, he's not fast, he's not nimble, he's not especially challenging. It's less likely he would maintain his health in prior eras. Joe is the smaller guy, but a little tougher out on the football field. Brady has unmatched durability, partly a result of avoiding contact.

How do you possibly measure that either guy was tougher than the other out on the FB field. Seriously, how can anyone question Brady's toughness when he just never goes out of the game. You are nuts if you dont think he has taken plenty of hits in his career.

The 3 best QBs of the 80s or 90s other than Joe

Marino... didnt miss a start for 8 seasons
Favre 321 consecutive starts without missing a game.
Elway missed 6 games in his entire career

These guys were great and able to play great despite the rules of the time. They stayed healthy Elway had mobility early in his career but these guys were basically pocket passers like Brady. Just not sure why they could do it but Brady cant according to so many in here. Maybe because he is married to a super model.

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by TheNef77:
Let Brady get hit by Suh and Justin Houston the way Montana got lit up in the 80s. Joe could thrive in today's game. Brady wouldn't last in Joe's era.

And how do you know he wouldnt last? Brady is 6 4 and 225. Joe was 6 2 and 200. Saying Brady wouldnt have lasted in that era is ridiculous.

Dan Marino started 16 games 8 of 9 years from 84-92. Elway was hardly ever hurt. Brett Favre started over 200 consecutive starts in which almost all were in "Joes era". Perhaps it wasnt so much the era but the fact that Joe was pretty darn fragile and a guy who was knocked out of 2 playoff games.

drew brees is few inches shorter and still had 8lb on montana. joe was skinny as hell in today's standard.

also in 80's players were much smaller. alan branch is 6ft 6 350lb who can move. there were no dudes like that in the 80's.

first, it's impossible to compare era to era. if current brady or rodgers went back in time to play in the 80's, they would destroy the league. it's like going back in time with a new porsche 911 turbo and racing against past great sports cars. latest sports car will destroy the old ones. we always ignore athletic evolution. things evolve very quickly in sports. i know it's easy to glorify the past athletes, but athletes always get better. just look at the olympics. it's an athletic evolution.

game of the football is a game of speed and power most of the time. it's like browns playing alabama. alabama might be the best college team, but browns would still destroy them. cam chancellor would've been OLB/DE in the 80's.

second, past players never had today's benefits. so it's not fair for them. there are no millions of youtube tapes they can watch. they never really had today's training and nutrients. if montana time travels to play in today's game, IMO he will constantly get hurt because of his small frame. drew brees is 2 inches shorter and weighs more than montana's prime. so this means montana would have to bulk up to about 220-225lb which is an ideal weight for montana's height and be similar to aaron rodgers sized. but we don't know how montana would carry that weight. i'm sure he can, but hypothetically speaking it would take long time to adjust. he might enjoy getting better protection, but since the game is faster, he maybe become more prone to throwing picks. and his ok arm strength may cause some trouble against top D.

bottom line - when you compare era to era, you compare player vs. his peers. because if you don't, 9 out of 10 times today's players will come out on the top.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Both hits knocked him out cold. Brady is not a physical guy, he's not fast, he's not nimble, he's not especially challenging. It's less likely he would maintain his health in prior eras. Joe is the smaller guy, but a little tougher out on the football field. Brady has unmatched durability, partly a result of avoiding contact.

such a flawed logic. brady would be one of the biggest QB in the 80's. and brady is getting hit by a bigger and faster human beings. DEs DLs, LBs all much bigger now than ever before. yes, brady will get calls in his way alot when he gets hit, but that doesn't mean he didn't get hit.

nobody outside of san fran really considers montana as the GOAT anymore. it's brady by a mile. post a poll in a neutral place. brady runs away with the votes. yes it will never be consensus, but brady would easily lead the 'goat' votine.

the major difference is the longevity. brady dominated the league longer and he's not slowing down. dude is 39 and posted one of the best years. dude is 39!

montana was great but like all the greats in the past will eventually be surpassed by the new guy. that's just how the world works. someday there will be a dude who will win more championships post crazy stats and take the GOAT title away from brady. montana held it for 20 years. that's a long time for a championship belt. i believe brady will hold it for tad longer because it's much harder to trump what brady has done in a salary cap era.

niners were loaded as hell. when you beat a team 55-10 what does that tell you? other team didn't belong in the same stage. why? because of the salary cap.

when brady had the best WR in the league he was breaking records. but when brady had no star level WRs, he made them legit. chris hogan for example.

yes, it's a team game. QBs get all the glories, but it's a team game. both niners and pats were great. but pats did it in the salary cap era.

just count the number of HOFers. pats don't have much.

Originally posted by natediaz:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Both hits knocked him out cold. Brady is not a physical guy, he's not fast, he's not nimble, he's not especially challenging. It's less likely he would maintain his health in prior eras. Joe is the smaller guy, but a little tougher out on the football field. Brady has unmatched durability, partly a result of avoiding contact.

such a flawed logic. brady would be one of the biggest QB in the 80's. and brady is getting hit by a bigger and faster human beings. DEs DLs, LBs all much bigger now than ever before. yes, brady will get calls in his way alot when he gets hit, but that doesn't mean he didn't get hit.

The difference is in the way players hit in the 80's compared to today's game. Back then a defender could basically destroy a QB by hitting him wherever he wanted without penalty. Those guys were tougher than today's players. Don't believe me? Check out the Raiders defense of the seventies and look at the hits they put on players, or Pittsburg's defense from that era. Compare them to today's game and it's clear that head hunting was just part of the game back then. Montana took some vicious hits that would get a 15 yard penalty in today's game.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

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.

No doubt Brady is legendary but remember even Matt Cassell had success when Brady went down.

pats went 18-1. cassel 11-5. HUGE DIFFERENCE. and brady goes down all of sudden afc east teams fight for the division. cassell got lucky because pats had the weakest schedule that year.

if brady played in 2008 pats go 15-1 easily. only loss that year is i think against the dolphins and their cute wildcat attack. brady would've put up 40+ tds too.

and matt cassel took the chiefs to the playoffs. so he was a good enough QB. but his arm got shot after that

Originally posted by LVJay:

Originally posted by SoCold:
4-0 >>>>>>>>>>>> 4/5-2

0 super bowl INT >>>>>>>>>>>> how many does Brady have?

Doesn't matter cause zero >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?

When you want a solid chance of winning in the SB, you go with Brady...

To assure a guaranteed win, you roll with Montana!

/Thread

#NuffSaid #LockThisBadBoyUp

what a ridiculous argument. it's not even funny anymore. getting to the SB is a great accomplishment. at the end of the day it's a team game. no 1 man can will himself to win a football game. somebody has to catch the ball, somebody has to block. TEAM, TEAM TEAM

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Both hits knocked him out cold. Brady is not a physical guy, he's not fast, he's not nimble, he's not especially challenging. It's less likely he would maintain his health in prior eras. Joe is the smaller guy, but a little tougher out on the football field. Brady has unmatched durability, partly a result of avoiding contact.

I think that if Joe had a chance to where Uggs and feel the comfort of them, feeling above everyone and get too relaxed from the elegant feeling of wearing them, he too might cry to refs every time he was tapped, bumped or hit