Joe Montana Legacy Secured

bottom line is..

asking who is better between the two is like asking everyone in the football world...

IS YOUR DAUGHTER PRETTIER THAN MY DAUGHTER??

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Agreed, bad arguments shouldn't be considered and bandied about.

What about the good ones, for example athletic qualities?

How do you feel about those?

Also, the qb protections got npoticably more pronounced as qb salaries skyrocketed. One hit can wipe out a 100M investment and years and years of training.

I see that as a gradual process starting in joes era and continuing today with greate and greater benefit to the qb.,

In the mid 80's, teams head hunted qbs as a game altering strategy. Expolicitely and with no apology. Brady simply has not played in that environment for the last decade, perhaps longer. Don't you agree?

So I think there is some merit to that discussion, as it impacts Brady's endurance.

Montana was more injured relative to his peer group, and Brady is less injured relative to his peer group. You can't simply default to assuming that Brady would have been more injured. Moon was starting 16 games at 39 in 1995 just like Brady just did. It's far from impossible.

Might Brady have missed a game or 2 every season like many did then? There is a decent chance that happens. However, to think it would have likely substantially altered his career arc considering his unusually good health even for his era is unlikely. It really shouldn't be that major a part in the discussion. Certainly as a central pillar it is a pretty weak one.

Originally posted by 9moon:
bottom line is..

asking who is better between the two is like asking everyone in the football world...

IS YOUR DAUGHTER PRETTIER THAN MY DAUGHTER??

.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/sports/patriots/2017/02/07/tom-brady-continues-troll-roger-goodell-during-patriots-parade/zcYJIoOtLJIJIT0FcHcgLO/amp.html?client=safari

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4195502/amp/Tom-Brady-trolls-Roger-Goodell-Super-Bowl-advert.html?client=safari

"Tom Brady continues to troll Goodell during the Patriots parade"

I love the jabs at Goodell...

Roger that. Lol

Originally posted by Wu-5Rings:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/sports/patriots/2017/02/07/tom-brady-continues-troll-roger-goodell-during-patriots-parade/zcYJIoOtLJIJIT0FcHcgLO/amp.html?client=safari

"Tom Brady continues to troll Goodell during the Patriots parade"

I love the jabs at Goodell...

Roger that!

lol

Originally posted by jcs:

Originally posted by Wu-5Rings:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/sports/patriots/2017/02/07/tom-brady-continues-troll-roger-goodell-during-patriots-parade/zcYJIoOtLJIJIT0FcHcgLO/amp.html?client=safari

"Tom Brady continues to troll Goodell during the Patriots parade"

I love the jabs at Goodell...

Roger that!

lol

Originally posted by McClusky:
Montana was more injured relative to his peer group, and Brady is less injured relative to his peer group. You can't simply default to assuming that Brady would have been more injured. Moon was starting 16 games at 39 in 1995 just like Brady just did. It's far from impossible.

Might Brady have missed a game or 2 every season like many did then? There is a decent chance that happens. However, to think it would have likely substantially altered his career arc considering his unusually good health even for his era is unlikely. It really shouldn't be that major a part in the discussion. Certainly as a central pillar it is a pretty weak one.

How are you calculating more and less injured, and what counts as a peer group?

Certainly brady is a bigger guy, so it stands to reason that he will be more durable. Especially since the NFL made it illegal to hit quarterbacks below the knee, where tall qb's are vulnerable.
'
I think that's helped Brady a little.

Do you have evidence that qbs in Joes era were injured at about the same rate and with the same severity as qb's in Brady's era? I dont want to get off topic, but I think its an interesting divagation.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by McClusky:
Montana was more injured relative to his peer group, and Brady is less injured relative to his peer group. You can't simply default to assuming that Brady would have been more injured. Moon was starting 16 games at 39 in 1995 just like Brady just did. It's far from impossible.

Might Brady have missed a game or 2 every season like many did then? There is a decent chance that happens. However, to think it would have likely substantially altered his career arc considering his unusually good health even for his era is unlikely. It really shouldn't be that major a part in the discussion. Certainly as a central pillar it is a pretty weak one.

How are you calculating more and less injured, and what counts as a peer group?

Certainly brady is a bigger guy, so it stands to reason that he will be more durable. Especially since the NFL made it illegal to hit quarterbacks below the knee, where tall qb's are vulnerable.
'
I think that's helped Brady a little.

Do you have evidence that qbs in Joes era were injured at about the same rate and with the same severity as qb's in Brady's era? I dont want to get off topic, but I think its an interesting divagation.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/nccsi/2012FBInj.pdf

Page 19 table 1...

More deaths in football in the 00's than the 80's...

Originally posted by jcs:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by McClusky:
Montana was more injured relative to his peer group, and Brady is less injured relative to his peer group. You can't simply default to assuming that Brady would have been more injured. Moon was starting 16 games at 39 in 1995 just like Brady just did. It's far from impossible.

Might Brady have missed a game or 2 every season like many did then? There is a decent chance that happens. However, to think it would have likely substantially altered his career arc considering his unusually good health even for his era is unlikely. It really shouldn't be that major a part in the discussion. Certainly as a central pillar it is a pretty weak one.

How are you calculating more and less injured, and what counts as a peer group?

Certainly brady is a bigger guy, so it stands to reason that he will be more durable. Especially since the NFL made it illegal to hit quarterbacks below the knee, where tall qb's are vulnerable.
'
I think that's helped Brady a little.

Do you have evidence that qbs in Joes era were injured at about the same rate and with the same severity as qb's in Brady's era? I dont want to get off topic, but I think its an interesting divagation.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/nccsi/2012FBInj.pdf

Page 19 table 1...

More deaths in football in the 00's than the 80's...

OK. What does this have to do with injuries?

Brady is still around now because the game is way different. Put him in the 90's era and he's not playing at 39. He's gone by 35 easy. He is benefitting from the pussboy era where you can't hit a QB like you could back when Montana was getting drilled. Brady is not the best QB and neither is Montana. It's Manning. Put Manning with the Niners. put Manning with Belicheck and it's no contest.

Originally posted by lod01:
Brady is still around now because the game is way different. Put him in the 90's era and he's not playing at 39. He's gone by 35 easy. He is benefitting from the pussboy era where you can't hit a QB like you could back when Montana was getting drilled. Brady is not the best QB and neither is Montana. It's Manning. Put Manning with the Niners. put Manning with Belicheck and it's no contest.

lol

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by McClusky:

This, I'm not really interested in arguing Brady over Montana. I'm arguing against bad arguments. I understand that this is a 49ers board, but that doesn't mean that poor arguments need go unchallenged. If you want to argue Montana over Brady there are plenty of good ways to do it, argue playstyle preference, argue the challenges to comparing eras, argue playoff statistical performance, argue concentrated success over a shorter period of time (ie. higher overall level of play, shorter duration). I'm not here to argue that Brady is the best, I think very good arguments can be made for Montana (or Rodgers for that matter).

However, don't try and caveat every ounce of one guy's resume, while giving the benefit of the doubt to the other guy in every instance. For example, why exactly does the hypothetical violence of the other era go against Brady's ability to stay healthy? He's healthier than almost everyone from his present era, and played 8 years before QB rules went into effect suffering one injury. What is there to indicate that injuries would have been a major factor in his career trajectory rather than it being an argument of convenience?

A week ago the arguments in here were that Brady has never led a GW TD drive in the clutch, now that he has it's a whole slew of other arguments. Consistent means for arguments and consistent application is what I look for. If robust conversations are going to happen on 49ers topics, they're not going to happen if people build huge house of cards arguments, or if they try to tell you that something that is red is blue. English seems pretty deeply invested in people never mentioning the implicit bias that is present on this board. Not every pro-49ers argument has merit just by the nature of being pro-49ers.

Agreed, bad arguments shouldn't be considered and bandied about.

What about the good ones, for example athletic qualities?

How do you feel about those?

Also, the qb protections got npoticably more pronounced as qb salaries skyrocketed. One hit can wipe out a 100M investment and years and years of training.

I see that as a gradual process starting in joes era and continuing today with greate and greater benefit to the qb.,

In the mid 80's, teams head hunted qbs as a game altering strategy. Expolicitely and with no apology. Brady simply has not played in that environment for the last decade, perhaps longer. Don't you agree?

So I think there is some merit to that discussion, as it impacts Brady's endurance.

Totally agree. I can't take anything away from Brady he's awesome. But if i had to draft either one. It's Montana everyday all day for me.

Here's an intersting article, speak of the devil.

Era adjusted passer ratings.

Check it out. All the background reading links are in the article, from Pro football reference.

Joe comes out ahead of Tom,,Aaron ahead of Joe, Roger ahead of Aaron. But none of them are number 1.

http://www.footballperspective.com/adjusting-passer-rating-for-era-part-v-the-results/

Originally posted by lod01:
Brady is still around now because the game is way different. Put him in the 90's era and he's not playing at 39. He's gone by 35 easy. He is benefitting from the pussboy era where you can't hit a QB like you could back when Montana was getting drilled. Brady is not the best QB and neither is Montana. It's Manning. Put Manning with the Niners. put Manning with Belicheck and it's no contest.

Yeah...cuz in this "p***yboy era" we see all these other QBs playing so well at 39 years old.

And bringing up Manning? Get the fuk out of here with that garbage.

Dude has 9 one and dones in the playoffs

He has more picks in the SB than TDs. Has just 1 more TD than pick 6s in the SB.

Dude is a choke artist whose win % drops like 20 points from regular season to postseason.

Only legacy that's secured is Joe Montania