Originally posted by WookieOftheYear:
Thats all they had, those teams werent as good as the Giants teams that beat the Pats both times. Kicker argument is not a very good one and is played out. Dont forget if it wasnt for a dropped int in the endzone Montana would have a L on side for a super bowl, he was lucky he got another chance
The Broncos team that we demolished 55-10 had the No. 1 ranked defense in the NFL that year and a HOF QB. How can you say the NY Giants circa 2011 that finished 9-7 was better than the '89 Broncos? The Miami team that we throttled 38-16 in '84 had the No. 1 offense in the NFL and the No. 7 defense and a HOF QB. You're saying that the NY Giants of 2007 and 2011 were better than those teams?
The 49ers had to win against very good teams in an era where teams were stacked. The Giants, Bears, Redskins in the 80s were dominant and we beat them more than they beat us to get to 4 SBs. If you had flaws in your team - like being dead last in rushing or bottom 5 in total defense - you weren't sniffing the SB in the 80s. Now teams win the SB despite having these serious flaws. You can argue that Brady is better because he's led his team to 5 SBs in an era where teams aren't stacked ... but I frankly think that cuts both ways. That means Brady's Patriots were beating weak, flawed teams to reach the SB, whereas Montana's 49ers had to go through the same 3-4 teams (all with multiple HOFers and SB titles) to do so. I'll take the QB that actually wins games against stacked teams over the QB whose resume includes 3 point wins against Jake Delhomme and Donovan McNabb and a road to the SB involving wins over the Tebow-led Broncos, the Flacco-led Ravens, and a loss to the 9-7 Giants.