Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by LVJay:

Originally posted by RonMexico:

Originally posted by LVJay:
You would be one of them (never seen him play)?

yes

I feel you and understand where you're coming from. Brady is arguably the best QB of all time period. Having said that, I still have to argue that Montana is the best QB of all time in SBs. Because of that, there will always be this debate (especially and obviously with 49er fans).

I will say this tho, if Brady wins this next one, he's got my vote over Montana (very slight vote)

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:
Ya, right now it's 1.a and 1.b. If Brady wins a 5th, discussion over. Otherwise, stop hating on teams that are going for 6 SBs, just because they pass our total. If you care that much about SBs, than you should care about Brady winning 5.

Originally posted by PatrickWillisHOF:
Ok. So Montana is the greatest super bowl qb. Brady is the best qb.

See my bold up there?!

Go rest your necks

Originally posted by natediaz:
it's well documented.
http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=3832996
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/study-finds-1-5-nfl-players-80s-used-steroids
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/curtain-shame-steelers-dynasty-asterisk-juice-story-true-article-1.597935
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steroid_use_in_American_football

and it's not really even their fault. they didn't really know much about it. and the league didn't start testing it since late 80's. so it really wasn't an unfair advantage because pretty much every teams had roiders.

and yeah we don't know what % of players used steroids. i'm sure it's much higher than right now.

Wanna know why I didn't bother to click on those links (no disrespect)? I didn't bother looking into it because there's no way of proving those eras' players abused roids / were into doping more than these days. There's no way of proving that. We are arguing about eras, advantageous, disadvantageous, etc. of QBs going against defenders now, right?

What we can prove (especially by the eye test) is that players these days are bigger, faster, stronger and have healed a lot better than the past eras. And like I mentioned before, that isn't because of better nutrients in food. Science / medicine / PEDs / doping, all have evolved and are significantly better (have helped players more than ever.).

Because defenders are better, olinemen and other blockers (FBs, RBs, TEs) have gotten better. Pass protection benefits QBs

biggest growth is definitely biggies in the trenches. in 80's there were only 3 linemen over 300lb. they only avg around 265. the freaky thing about is that while these players gained so much mass they really didn't lose much speed.

just watch this year's nfl draft and see how big these guys are. size does matter in sports. no matter how great the 70s and 80's teams were, they will get blown out by the current niners with kaep. i really mean it. the game is decided in the trenches. 260lb dlineman won't be able to move 330lb oilineman. 270lb olineman won't be able to block 300lb dlineman. great anthony munoz has to add 35lb to his frame if he wants to play at a HOF level.

this ends to all the era to era debate. it's a different game.

Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:

I grew up in the 90s so I remember a fading Montana, Steve Young with a loaded team finally getting it done, wishing Aikman would die, and facing Favre the 49er killer.

Truthfully, I can only rate QBs from the late 90's forward. Its kind of silly to say that as a 10 year old or something you can judge QBs. For me, only considering guys that played into the 2000s and beyond, my top 10:

1. Tom Brady
2. Aaron Rodgers
3. Peyton Manning
4. Drew Brees
5. Kurt Warner
6. Brett Favre
7. Ben Roethlisberger
8. Michael Vick
9. Russell Wilson
10. Cam Newton

If Matt Ryan is able to pull off a SB win, I'd probably bump him on the list over Cam.

lol IDK about 8-10, thats is a bit off.

IMO top 10 QB's from 2000-present would be:

1. Tom Brady
2. Peyton Manning
3. Drew Brees
4. Aaron Rodgers
5. Ben Roethlisberger
6. Brett Favre
7. Kurt Warner
8. Philip Rivers
9. Tony Romo
10. Donovan McNabb
11. Eli Manning
12. Steve McNair

The last 5 are debatable, but Newton, Wilson, Ryan, Vick, etc are a tier below those guys.

one last thing, montana was listed at 6ft 2 all his career for no real reason. he was never measured officially. IMO montana was 6ft 1 same as jerry rice.

there's a big perception in today's nfl with guys who are 6ft 1 or 6ft 2. that 1 inch difference is a major in the draft process.

http://www.celebheights.com/s/Joe-Montana-49065.html










from all the footages i've seen in the past, i have yet to see montana looking full 6ft 2. and these images just prove my point.
so basically montana in today's nfl will be considered an undersized QB. he is basically drew brees mold. IMO if montana played today, he would resemble drew brees the most. IMO there's nothing wrong with that. brees is a great QB, a future HOFer.

Originally posted by natediaz:


biggest growth is definitely biggies in the trenches. in 80's there were only 3 linemen over 300lb. they only avg around 265. the freaky thing about is that while these players gained so much mass they really didn't lose much speed.

just watch this year's nfl draft and see how big these guys are. size does matter in sports. no matter how great the 70s and 80's teams were, they will get blown out by the current niners with kaep. i really mean it. the game is decided in the trenches. 260lb dlineman won't be able to move 330lb oilineman. 270lb olineman won't be able to block 300lb dlineman. great anthony munoz has to add 35lb to his frame if he wants to play at a HOF level.

this ends to all the era to era debate. it's a different game.

Brady / Montana are both great, period. I can't say that Brady isn't (arguably) the greatest ever... he's proved himself over n over and his career is still going strong. However, there are facts / stats that Montana has, which no one has touched.

Originally posted by natediaz:
that 1 inch difference is a major...

She ain't gon sweat ya, son... put some motion in the ocean, that oughta help

Originally posted by natediaz:


biggest growth is definitely biggies in the trenches. in 80's there were only 3 linemen over 300lb. they only avg around 265. the freaky thing about is that while these players gained so much mass they really didn't lose much speed.

just watch this year's nfl draft and see how big these guys are. size does matter in sports. no matter how great the 70s and 80's teams were, they will get blown out by the current niners with kaep. i really mean it. the game is decided in the trenches. 260lb dlineman won't be able to move 330lb oilineman. 270lb olineman won't be able to block 300lb dlineman. great anthony munoz has to add 35lb to his frame if he wants to play at a HOF level.

this ends to all the era to era debate. it's a different game.

Your growth of a lineman poster seems to show an obvious difference, the 3 guys on top aren't training the same way as the 4 below them. The body fat goes up on Munoz the last two guys would be considered borderline morbidly obese. The biggest difference are how many times they did reps at the all you can eat buffet. In Bendarcik's day next to no one trained with weights. During Otto's career training methods made the biggest leaps. By Webster's era they were doing a lot of the same things they are now. Mark Schlereth is on local radio here, O-line for the Redskins and Broncos 1989-2000. He said he was forced to eat his way to 300 pounds to play in the NFL from his natural weight of 245, when he retired he stopped over eating and dropped down to 245. The magic training system for many bigger players is over eating. Once again, those claiming modern training methods and nutrition that weren't available 35 years ago, what are they?

Originally posted by natediaz:
one last thing, montana was listed at 6ft 2 all his career for no real reason. he was never measured officially. IMO montana was 6ft 1 same as jerry rice.

there's a big perception in today's nfl with guys who are 6ft 1 or 6ft 2. that 1 inch difference is a major in the draft process.

http://www.celebheights.com/s/Joe-Montana-49065.html

The practice probably ended when the combine started but back in the day it was common to add two inches in height and 20 pounds to the average player in HS and College. If I guy was too fat he got listed at a lower weight. I think it was done as propaganda for opposing teams not only did people watch 8mm film of the opponent you looked on a roster to see how big someone was.

Originally posted by natediaz:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Originally posted by natediaz:
this isn't my theory. the game is faster now then before. that's pretty much factual. i was reading article about it. it's the history of sports in general. maybe there were better RBs running the show because run game was much more emphasized back then. but as far as QB goes they have to get better because it's a passing league. it's the simple truth.

and yes, bigger doesn't always mean better. but it has so much more advantages in the game of football. like i said i follow college football religiously. i don't want jourdan lewis who's 5ft 10 near my team. i don't want 5ft 10 CB anymore after having how successful richard sherman has been. i want 6ft 1+ guy with a long arm great hips. for DE i really hate undersized DEs. i just can't trust them. first they get banged up so much more. and they just come and go. yeah JJ watt is a freak, but i want a guy who's 6ft 5 280lb+ with really long arm. because LTs are growing too. and they are freaky athletic. i mean 6ft 7 310lb running sub 4.9?

and WRs. ideally i want 3 different body type. i want a shift slot WR, a crafty #2 WR who is versatile, and #1 WR like megatron/julio jones. that's ideal for me. and TE better block and become dominant. after seeing guys like gronk, prime graham, i want TE to be a major part of the game especially when my team refuses spend draft picks on the OL.

Lolz game evolves and is recycled.

1995 Detroit Lions

WR Herman Moore, 6-4, 215 (100+ catches)
WR Brett Perriman, 5-9, 180 (100+ catches)
WR Johnnie Morton, 6-0, 190 (44 catches, 8 tds)

mid 90's are where we started to really see teams wanting bigger players. herman moore was 'huge' back then. why don't you post entire weight and height of 1986 niners? and compared it to 2016 niners? because i was comparing the 80's and 2010's. 30 years is a long time.

Wtf you trying to prove now? I just debunked your theory on ideal offensive weapons in that it's already been done. And now you want me to compare height/weight of the 80's 49ers to today's 49ers? Why?

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Originally posted by natediaz:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Originally posted by natediaz:
this isn't my theory. the game is faster now then before. that's pretty much factual. i was reading article about it. it's the history of sports in general. maybe there were better RBs running the show because run game was much more emphasized back then. but as far as QB goes they have to get better because it's a passing league. it's the simple truth.

and yes, bigger doesn't always mean better. but it has so much more advantages in the game of football. like i said i follow college football religiously. i don't want jourdan lewis who's 5ft 10 near my team. i don't want 5ft 10 CB anymore after having how successful richard sherman has been. i want 6ft 1+ guy with a long arm great hips. for DE i really hate undersized DEs. i just can't trust them. first they get banged up so much more. and they just come and go. yeah JJ watt is a freak, but i want a guy who's 6ft 5 280lb+ with really long arm. because LTs are growing too. and they are freaky athletic. i mean 6ft 7 310lb running sub 4.9?

and WRs. ideally i want 3 different body type. i want a shift slot WR, a crafty #2 WR who is versatile, and #1 WR like megatron/julio jones. that's ideal for me. and TE better block and become dominant. after seeing guys like gronk, prime graham, i want TE to be a major part of the game especially when my team refuses spend draft picks on the OL.

Lolz game evolves and is recycled.

1995 Detroit Lions

WR Herman Moore, 6-4, 215 (100+ catches)
WR Brett Perriman, 5-9, 180 (100+ catches)
WR Johnnie Morton, 6-0, 190 (44 catches, 8 tds)

mid 90's are where we started to really see teams wanting bigger players. herman moore was 'huge' back then. why don't you post entire weight and height of 1986 niners? and compared it to 2016 niners? because i was comparing the 80's and 2010's. 30 years is a long time.

Wtf you trying to prove now? I just debunked your theory on ideal offensive weapons in that it's already been done. And now you want me to compare height/weight of the 80's 49ers to today's 49ers? Why?

you didn't debunk anything. all you did was list 3 random guys which proves nothing. it's factual that every year players gained more pounds in the nfl. every year. and please flex your reading comprehension muscles. if you read my posts, i never once said players are taller. players have more mass. human in general sorta maxed out in height. i think football players shouldn't be too tall. it would be very weird to see a 7ft football players because eh, why would 7fter play football?

i did point out QBs are bigger and indicated they are taller - brady being one of the biggest QB in both 70's and 80's. QBs don't necessarily have to be tall. but they have to play tall. russell wilson and drew brees both play taller than their height. and if you are short QB you better be thick and have a strong core. no matter how soft the rules maybe when you get hit by JJ Watt it or julius peppers it hurts no matter what.

and i consider montana an 80's player. so i was comparing 80s and current nfl. 30 years a major difference.

Originally posted by BobS:
Your growth of a lineman poster seems to show an obvious difference, the 3 guys on top aren't training the same way as the 4 below them. The body fat goes up on Munoz the last two guys would be considered borderline morbidly obese. The biggest difference are how many times they did reps at the all you can eat buffet. In Bendarcik's day next to no one trained with weights. During Otto's career training methods made the biggest leaps. By Webster's era they were doing a lot of the same things they are now. Mark Schlereth is on local radio here, O-line for the Redskins and Broncos 1989-2000. He said he was forced to eat his way to 300 pounds to play in the NFL from his natural weight of 245, when he retired he stopped over eating and dropped down to 245. The magic training system for many bigger players is over eating. Once again, those claiming modern training methods and nutrition that weren't available 35 years ago, what are they?

that's not how it works. back then players were asked to gain weight they never carried around. but it's much different now.

yes it's unnatural to ask naturally 245lb man to bulk up to 300lb anymore. i'm heavily involved in local high school football scene. in high school coaches groom these kids to become behemoth. if coaches spot a big kid then they groom them into a tackle. that's how all sports works. most of kids are found early. and this crazy dog eat dog world of football groom them into the future 4 to 5 star. it's kinda disturbing to think about it. we make kids to be big. and no they don't force eating taco bells. they naturally gain big with the work out and put simply a living an american way of life.

don't believe me? look at this listings.
https://n.rivals.com/prospect_rankings/rivals100/


just look at few of the top oline players.

6ft 5 298lb
6ft 8 305lb
6ft 6 315lb.

bunch of 17 year olds.

one of the guy is walker little. 5 star kid. he looks like this. 6ft 8. 305lb. a natural giant.



and when they become a man they are comfortable carrying 330lb weight because that's how they lived all their life. football, eating, working out etc, are part of their daily life since they were little kids. we all know that kid who are just bigger than anybody. and if that guy isn't really interested in playing basketball, then football is an obvious choice if he is up for it.

i remember schlereth talking about how big these guys are and how comfortable they are carrying that kinda weight. he mentioned the word - 'systematic'. yeah, it's the great world of the friday night secret system. do you want to be a top oline playing for bama and ohio state? you better be 6ft 5+ 300lb.


and those big kids become guys like these.


6ft 7 1/8 310lb 4.87 dash





maybe it's just me these guys don't look like a typical obese dudes who's about to die on the field. yes there are guys like vince wilfork. but there are guys like tyron smith or taylor lewan who are just big dudes.

Not sure who the Cowboy is but his build looks very similar to Tony Mandarich who was an admitted roid user who started his NFL career over 25 years ago. There are exceptions to the every rule, but seriously no one yet has told me the so called magic training and or nutrition that creates bigger players without adding fat. The magic bullet is a needle. Barry Bonds never tested dirty, yet he had roid user tattooed on his forehead.

Should we take the drug inflation discussion to another thread? Its tangential to the main topic.

Assume players of all eras are doing the pharma of their time. if joe was playing in 2000's he would be 6'3 220. if brady was playing in the 80' hed be 6'2 215. Not really relevant discussion.