Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by SoCold:
Montana stopped playing at 38.
Johnny Us last full season he was 37. Played until he was 40 but only avg 5 games a season his last 3 years.
Bradshaw was 35.
Elway 38.
Manning 39.

Honestly i think Brett Favre is the only guy who had a good season this late in his career, a great season actually at age 40(remains to be seen what Brady does) but he also led the league with picks at 39 and totally fell off at 41.

The way Brady was playing this year I really don't see him falling off next year or even the year after especially if the Pats bring in some more weapons for him after they move Jimmy.

Not to mention Brady doesn't rely on his arm as much as Favre did and plays much smarter and knows his limitations.

Originally posted by McClusky:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Mcclusky what skills do you think make brady exceptional.

Dont quote resume and stats?

Brady mental game is unrivaled by anyone ever besides Manning. The Patriots modified Erdhart-Perkins offense is extraordinarily complicated, even moreso that Walsh's West Coast offense. Brady has unlimited autonomy to audible. His arm is stronger than Montana's. He gets the ball out of his hand quicker than anyone and only Manning and Marino really rivals him there either. Really the only thing Montana has tangibly on Brady is mobility, the rest is arguable.

Ok interesting.

You are correct about the arm strength but I think Joe threw the more catchable balls, and a greater variety of them.

The quickest release belongs to rogers hands down. You must agree?

I don't notice Brady being the master of trajectory, like Marino. At all. I think he throws a good velocity semi arc ball pretty much every route he lgoes with. But, thats a tv observation really. Brady seems pretty mechanical in his delivery. I don't think of him like Marino at all. Joe neither, by the way.

Like Manning, I think of Brady as being more decisive than having a quick release. That comes with being an old coot. They know what they're looking for and pull the trigger when it shows up.

joe definately was more prone to going through the 63 reads walsh put into every play. But that was also a function of his ability to extend plays with his feet.

Originally posted by BobS:
Of those only Montana and Elway played good till the end. Manning's last year was horrible, Johnny U played 5 years too long, Bradshaw's last two were bad. As far as longevity Brady blows them all away.

agreed.

Honestly Brady shouldn't be this good. But he's probably one of the hardest working players in history combined with belichicks genius football accumen makes him an incredible player. Besides maybe some alleged cheating scandals, this guy is the GOAT.




Though Montana is right behind him.

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by McClusky:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Didnt do that great against ravens. Beat seattle with a large assist from epic chump pete carroll. You could suggest a similar situation with matt ryan. The guy snuggles to epic failure like a security blanket.


Its all secondary. Its about the player. You review the plays one by one year after year and the pattern emerges. One is elite one is hyper elite. Thats all.

But the durability piece is a wild card. If brady still performs a couple more years then you have to weigh it very heavily.

Its already the reason we are even having this discussion.

He also dropped 41 on the number 1 ranked defense in 2004. Arguing resume against Tom Brady will never be a winning argument. The man has almost everything Montana has plus 3 or 4 more examples of success.

With regards to the bolded, you can make an argument, but the vast majority of the world outside of this board would argue the inverse for Brady and Montana.

Last time I checked we weren't outside the board. In terms of sheer numbers the bulk of the "vast majority" of which you speak have been watching the game for a maximum of 10 years. So obviously Brady is the guy against whom they measure. A fair chunk of this majority up to recently were saying that Wilson was the greatest.

This is a 49ers supporters board. I don't understand why several of you are finding it so difficult to understand the love and respect for Joe Montana. You aren't going to change anybody's mind and I can't even be bothered to try any more. It's a pointless argument so let's move on.

Of course there is love for Joe. Some of us actually saw every game he played and think of him as our favorite player. However, that does not mean that we cant also see the greatness of Tom Brady and understand that his accomplishments over an entire career has put him #1 on the all time QB list. When he retires he will have the most regular season wins, most championships, most SB MVPs, and just about every record there is.

I understand the argument from those who say Joe had more ability. I would agree that he had more mobilty but that is about it. Brady has the stronger arm and to me the accuracy, awareness, and ability to compete is on a par. I just dont think there is some huge advantage in skill set that many try to suggest. They both had the advantage of playing in great systems under HOF head coaches that did give them an edge over other QBs.

The one argument that is really dumb is that Brady would not have survived in Joe's era. Brady is bigger and stronger than Joe and has survived many hits in his career with amazing durability. QBs were able to play without getting hurt in Joes time. Go look at Marino, Elway, and Favre's stats if you dont think so. Brady could have played then just like Joe could have played now.

Finally, if people want to continue to debate this why should they have to move on. No one is asking you to be bothered to try to convince anyone.

Originally posted by McClusky:
Brady mental game is unrivaled by anyone ever besides Manning. The Patriots modified Erdhart-Perkins offense is extraordinarily complicated, even moreso that Walsh's West Coast offense. Brady has unlimited autonomy to audible. His arm is stronger than Montana's. He gets the ball out of his hand quicker than anyone and only Manning and Marino really rivals him there either. Really the only thing Montana has tangibly on Brady is mobility, the rest is arguable.

It's interesting you mention the mental game because Montana strikes me as the more improvisational player. And, he played at a time where it was -- all things considered -- "harder" for receivers to get open. Hence, the need for improvisation. So, maybe it's a case of two systems each taking advantage of their competitive environment and evolving a qb to meet their needs.

I'm not sure how montana would run a modified Erdhart-Perkins offense. But I guess he would do alright. And maybe Mcdaniels might script in some mobility into the play set. How ould Brady fit into the WCO? Probably ok too. But, he would be hit more, back in the day.

Originally posted by genus49:
You're really not seeing the Brady analogy there?

Brady = less talented but works harder, trains harder and does more with his head than those other guys who may be more talented, have bigger arms, run faster.

Honestly the run Brady had in the SB I'm not sure he makes 10 years ago. The guy is playing some of his best football at 39 years old.

Who has done that?

Favre? (can't remember the age he was that good year in MN)

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Of course there is love for Joe. Some of us actually saw every game he played and think of him as our favorite player. However, that does not mean that we cant also see the greatness of Tom Brady and understand that his accomplishments over an entire career has put him #1 on the all time QB list. When he retires he will have the most regular season wins, most championships, most SB MVPs, and just about every record there is.

I understand the argument from those who say Joe had more ability. I would agree that he had more mobilty but that is about it. Brady has the stronger arm and to me the accuracy, awareness, and ability to compete is on a par. I just dont think there is some huge advantage in skill set that many try to suggest. They both had the advantage of playing in great systems under HOF head coaches that did give them an edge over other QBs.

The one argument that is really dumb is that Brady would not have survived in Joe's era. Brady is bigger and stronger than Joe and has survived many hits in his career with amazing durability. QBs were able to play without getting hurt in Joes time. Go look at Marino, Elway, and Favre's stats if you dont think so. Brady could have played then just like Joe could have played now.

Finally, if people want to continue to debate this why should they have to move on. No one is asking you to be bothered to try to convince anyone.

I beg to differ on the skill set argumewnt. You're talking like Joe didn't have exceptional accuracy, touch, and mental discipline. Joe could run and extend plays, a toolset Brady really doesn't have. So, I think your not assessing Joe accurately. he did a lot of things on the field to gain an advantage that don't show up on a combine. I don't see that from Brady so much.

And, brady would have taken more hits in Joe's time, possibly impinging on his durability.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
I beg to differ on the skill set argumewnt. You're talking like Joe didn't have exceptional accuracy, touch, and mental discipline. Joe could run and extend plays, a toolset Brady really doesn't have. So, I think your not assessing Joe accurately. he did a lot of things on the field to gain an advantage that don't show up on a combine. I don't see that from Brady so much.

And, brady would have taken more hits in Joe's time, possibly impinging on his durability.

When did I say that Joe didnt have exceptional touch, accuracy and mental discipline. Of course he did. You know what.. so does Tom Brady. The only real skill set that Joe had a significant edge was his ability to run and in my opinion Brady has the stronger arm.

I am not taking anything away from Joe or suggesting that he wasnt amazing. I just would argue that Brady has accomplished more and is the GOAT. I do think most people around the country believe that to be the case now even those old enough to have seen both play.

Originally posted by jcs:

Originally posted by Niners99:

I have never once heard that. Where are these "reports"?

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-11-14/sports/sp-2416_1_joe-montana
http://articles.dailypress.com/1990-01-26/sports/9001260010_1_drug-tests-nfl-s-drug-testing-program
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/05/report-fbi-was-snooping-around-joe-montana/
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/26/sports/nfl-s-drug-testing-program-called-inconsistent-and-unfair.html

There isnt a shred of proof in any of those articles. Just accusations. No actual reported test results, no fines, nothing. That could easily be media speculation to create controversy surrounding the best QB of the time.

Im not saying Montana never did coke. Id be surprised at what pro athlete DIDNT do it in the 80's at least once, but to suggest he was a addicted fiend is pretty outlandish.

as long as the question is under this way.. "IS BRADY BETTER THAN MONTANA?"..

that alone will tell you that he's yet to surpass JOE....

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Of course there is love for Joe. Some of us actually saw every game he played and think of him as our favorite player. However, that does not mean that we cant also see the greatness of Tom Brady and understand that his accomplishments over an entire career has put him #1 on the all time QB list. When he retires he will have the most regular season wins, most championships, most SB MVPs, and just about every record there is.

I understand the argument from those who say Joe had more ability. I would agree that he had more mobilty but that is about it. Brady has the stronger arm and to me the accuracy, awareness, and ability to compete is on a par. I just dont think there is some huge advantage in skill set that many try to suggest. They both had the advantage of playing in great systems under HOF head coaches that did give them an edge over other QBs.

The one argument that is really dumb is that Brady would not have survived in Joe's era. Brady is bigger and stronger than Joe and has survived many hits in his career with amazing durability. QBs were able to play without getting hurt in Joes time. Go look at Marino, Elway, and Favre's stats if you dont think so. Brady could have played then just like Joe could have played now.

Finally, if people want to continue to debate this why should they have to move on. No one is asking you to be bothered to try to convince anyone.

Because several have moved beyond a debate.

Originally posted by 9moon:
as long as the question is under this way.. "IS BRADY BETTER THAN MONTANA?"..

that alone will tell you that he's yet to surpass JOE....

The difference is that only 49er fans say that. It's like the 55-10 beat down of the Broncos in the Super Bowl. It's one of my favorites of all time. Most non 49er fans hate it. It's one of the worst rated SBs of all time. lol

All you're doing is saying Joe is the greatest just because I'm a 49er fans and I don't want to listen to reason. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

You really don't have to debate anything more after that point. Nothing will ever matter.

Originally posted by Niners99:
There isnt a shred of proof in any of those articles. Just accusations. No actual reported test results, no fines, nothing. That could easily be media speculation to create controversy surrounding the best QB of the time.

Im not saying Montana never did coke. Id be surprised at what pro athlete DIDNT do it in the 80's at least once, but to suggest he was a addicted fiend is pretty outlandish.

You asked for reports, I gave them to you. Not saying any of it is true, we will never really know....but there was enough "smoke" to see it carry over his entire career.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
I dont argue resume i argue skills assessment. Joe has a broader palette of physical tools than tom plus the joy of the game to bring his little bag of playground trick to the nfl. Brady is a little too intense to use the schoolyard.

I think its pretty obvious if you look at the players actually play. Maybe if brady didnt blow out his knee marry a supermodel and make a gizillion dollars it would be different. But it did.


Finally theres no denying that there has been an exogenous macro change in the rules that simply favors passing performance. Theyve had a huge impact statistically and there no denying that. Were pretty much back to early 60s afl wild wild west football. And joe did not have the statistical benefit of playing in this environment. Still hung 38 and 44 in super bowls. No come back needed there.


Any it turns out that i think joe probably ISNT the goat. Probably that honor goes to johnny u or baugh from what i hear. In the modern era theres only three that are in their own category roger aaron joe.

Im not going to say who is best among them but youll notice bradys name is not there.

But anothet couple years....

This is future HOFer Ray Lewis on Tom Brady...

"When we played in childhood, the game plan was simply 'go get open'. That's what Tom tells his receivers — go get open. He's playing you outside leverage — go inside. He's playing you inside leverage — go outside.

"When we played them [as a member of the Ravens], I used to always say to [teammates] 'this is schoolyard football'. Beat your man, dammit. If you have a problem beating your man, that's when Tom's coming."

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/ray-lewis-explains-what-makes-tom-brady-the-greatest-quarterback-of-all-time-013117