Originally posted by NinerGM:
No, Esiason uses this logic for Montana as a blanket statement - like you do.
You assume like many who haven't actually experienced in person the 49ers over time that the group you state where "talent was considerable" didn't happen overnight. It wasn't as if Rice, Taylor, Craig, Haley, Michael Carter, Lott, Wright, Sapolu, McIntyre, Barton, Rathman - they just walked on the field and were sudden all-pros.
Also, the players you mention span different eras of dominance but were all peaking at one time in 1989 more than 1988. Many 49er fans do this, not just germane to this argument. Different players were drafted at different times and peaked and was in their prime or still good but declining while others were peaking. Regardless, these players were good but there were teams out there that could push this team to their limit as in a competitive game. At the beginning of 1988, and at the end of the season, no one thought this was a dominant team and found ways to win - regardless.
By 1988, Rice had established himself as the best receiver in the league. He & Craig were 1st team All-Pros. Michael Carter was 2nd team All-Pro, and the linchpin of Seifert's 3-4. Charles Haley was a Pro-Bowler. So was Lott. JT was the best punt returner in the game and a Pro Bowler.
Randy Cross was 34. Sapolu & McIntyre were 27, and in their primes. Our entire secondary and almost our entire LB corps were in their mid-to-late 20's.
There is so much more talent on that team than on this Colts team, it isn't even a contest.
Quote:
To say other than 81 (and let's remember your original point that Montana had a metric ton of talent - absolutely) talent "pales" in comparison is just inaccurate. The 1984 team matches up quite well with the Colts of today - the Super Bowl. The 49ers have a better defense, BUT the Colts have MUCH better offense. Again, it doesn't "pale" in comparison. That's mythology.
My point is that over the course of their careers, Montana had considerably more talent than Manning had. And it isn't even close. That 1984 squad was the 2nd highest scoring team in the league, had Wendell Tyler AND Roger Craig in the backfield, along with Dwight Clark & Freddie Solomon in their primes. When you add that to the fact that the Niners had the stingiest defense in the league...there's no mythology needed.
Quote:
Since you're speaking from authority on the topic, please as one who made the initial argument, show me where Montana had a terrible game in 81 and 84 and the 49ers still won the game - by contrast show me a game where Manning had a terrible game in every case and the Colts lost? What is success? What's the standard that you're judging? TD? Passing yards?
He was phenomenal in '81.
Montana was good, but not great against both the Giants & Bears in '84. But the fact that the Niners gave up a
combined 10 points in those games gave the Niners the luxury of winning games despite a good-but-not-great performance from the QB position. Manning doesn't have that luxury.
He was God-awful in the playoffs from 85-87.
The gauge is reads and throws.
Quote:
See here's my point:
You can't make a blanket statement like "they had a metric ton of talent" or "their talent pales in comparison" or "that QB must do well" when you're making a comparative analysis of two teams playing in two different eras - especially when you're assessing "talent". I could say hands down, on offense, the Colts of today quite simply is a bigger and faster team than the 49ers of 1988, 81 and 84. That's more a precise statement than the argument you make and much more accurate simply because 300LB lineman and average offensive skill player running a 4.4 40 wasn't nearly as common as it is today.
In order for the argument to sell, I think you have to be more accurate.
Of course players are bigger/stronger/faster now. It's an assessment of talent relative to the contemporary mean. The 49ers were CONSIDERABLY more talented across the board, relative to the other teams in their era than the Colts are...especially outside of the QB position. I believe that this is born out by the multiple HOF, all-pro, and pro bowl appearances on those rosters in comparison with the current Colts squads.
Therefore, it's an illogical argument to state that Montana's a better quarterback simply based on Super Bowl victories. In order for it to be a valid metric, the surrounding variables would have to be nearly identical, and I don't believe that's even close to being the case in this comparison.
If you believe that Montana was better than Manning based upon the factors that a QB has control over, I'm willing to hear that. But if it's merely based on SB victories, it's an over-simplification that isn't based on an even playing field.
NINERS SB45